1. The Defendant’s KRW 228,939,490 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from November 26, 2017 to May 11, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and engages in wholesale and retail business, such as system windows, and the Defendant is a legal entity that runs a construction business.

B. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant recognized that the instant construction cost was KRW 341,00,000 as the total amount of construction cost in the written reply from July 14, 2017, with respect to multi-household houses located in Mapo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) (hereinafter “instant building”). The amount changed after preparation of the instant construction contract (Evidence A).

The following contract for construction (hereinafter “instant contract for construction”) was concluded with the content of delivery and installation, and the price was “the construction cost of this case”).

The contract for supply (production, installation) within 20 days after the completion of the fixed-term contract of KRW 231,700,000,000 for the total supply price of KRW 331,700,000 for the total purchase price of KRW 310,000 for the total purchase price of KRW 331,70,000 for the contract for metal construction and metal construction among the new construction of large-scale housing in Mucheon-gu, Musan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, for the remainder of payment of KRW 1,00,00 for the down payment of KRW 21,70,000 for the down payment of KRW 20,00 for the down payment of KRW 231,70,000 for the remainder of payment

C. On January 4, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000, out of the instant construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the case where the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder of the construction price of this case under the construction contract of this case becomes final and conclusive as well as the completion of the building of this case, and the payment of the construction price equivalent to the part constructed by the Plaintiff should be deemed to have been made. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the term “within 20 days after completion” as an additional official attached to the construction contract of this case as an indefinite term (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003; 2009Da1643, May 14, 2009).