1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 52,631,50, and 5% per annum from August 15, 2013 to September 26, 2014 and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, who manufactures and sells stone products with the trade name of “C,” was awarded a contract by setting the amount of KRW 57,500,000,000 and the construction period of the signboard, stone, and mountain products installed in D from the Defendant, the owner of the Section “D”, to KRW 57,500,000 and KRW 60,000 (hereinafter

B. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the manufacture and installation of the side and its affiliated body, booms and girls, etc. at KRW 207,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “second contract”).

C. The Defendant requested the suspension of construction on the ground that the Plaintiff’s completion of the production of a signboard stone and a acid pursuant to the first contract and supplies the signboard stone to the Defendant, and that the price for the first and second contract was excessive, around July 2012, when the Plaintiff made a production of stone in accordance with the second contract, and the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of construction expenses also rejected.

The Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on May 12, 2012, and KRW 20 million on July 5, 2012, and KRW 3 million on September 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 to 12, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the first contract price, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 14.5 million and damages for delay, deducting the amount of KRW 43 million paid by the Plaintiff in the construction cost of KRW 57.5 million, as the Plaintiff completed the manufacture of a signboard and scisf in the mountain, barring any special circumstances.

B. As seen earlier (i) the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to suspend construction on the ground of excessive construction cost before completing the construction work under the second contract, and the Plaintiff’s request to pay construction cost was rejected and the construction work has been suspended until now. As such, the second contract was invalidated and Article 673 of the Civil Act was applied mutatis mutandis.