1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,557,313 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 10, 2017 to January 15, 2019.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) with respect to the “D” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 1, 2016 from the Defendant on the second floor (hereinafter “instant skin center”), KRW 27 million of the construction cost (excluding value-added tax); (b) the removal of construction works from August 5, 2016 to August 16, 2016; (c) the construction period of KRW 450 million of the construction cost (excluding value-added tax); and (d) the Integian Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) as determined from August 17, 2016 to October 17, 2016; and (d) the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant for each of the aforementioned removal works; (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the amount of value-added tax for each of the aforementioned removal works, KRW 2.7 million of the value-added tax on the amount of KRW 80 million, KRW 50 million of value-added tax on each construction work;

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the completion of the instant construction was completed within the construction period, and the Defendant asserted that the instant construction was completed due to the fact that it was intended to enhance the Employment of the Titice Center, and thus, the completion of the construction is important. The instant construction was not completed because there were many parts of the non-construction of the instant construction, such as pipes, floor water leakage, sunlights, and bathing tanks.

However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed in accordance with social norms, if the construction is completed as the last process scheduled to be interrupted during the course of the construction, and the main structure of the construction is completed as agreed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed but it is only a defect in the object, and whether the last process intended to be interrupted is completed is not attributable to the contractor's assertion or the completion inspection conducted by the contractor.