1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 added the purport of the entire argument, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was awarded a contract from the defendant around February 20, 2016 for the construction cost of KRW 10,000,000 for total construction cost of the 4,5, and the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of Gwangjin-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the instant interior interior works") and completed the construction from February 25, 2016 to March 10, 2016, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 3,00,000 from the defendant's above construction cost.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 7,770,00 among the construction price (=total construction price of KRW 10,070,000 - the paid construction price of KRW 3 million) and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from March 10, 2016 when the Plaintiff served the original copy of the application for the payment order to the Defendant from March 13, 2016 until January 13, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since there are many differences in estimates and defects in the interior of this case completed by the plaintiff.

B. As to the first argument, it is insufficient to recognize that the interior project of this case conducted by the Plaintiff differs from the estimate, only by examining the first argument, including the statement of increase or decrease, Eul No. 1 (the statement of increase or decrease and the statement of calculated volume). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

[The Defendant’s assertion purports that the part of KRW 2,156,00 that increased additional volume in the above quantity calculation statement cannot be recognized. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1 (Written Estimate), the Plaintiff and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant already prepared a written estimate including the increased additional volume in the above volume calculation statement. Thus, the said increased part is not different from the written estimate.]

C. We examine the second argument. B.