1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant stating that “the construction of the three-story commercial building on the ground of the 3rd floor in the Northern-si, Northern-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) is to be supplied for the instant construction work,” and completed the said construction work on September 28, 2010.

B. On April 7, 2010, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as construction price, KRW 90,000,000 on June 8, 2010, and KRW 200,000 on September 16, 2010, and additionally paid KRW 30,000,000 on September 8, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8 as to the cause of the claim, i.e., (i) an architect D who participated in the instant construction work stated that the construction work price of this case was set at KRW 292,50,000, and (ii) the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the remainder of the construction work on August 18, 201, that it is difficult for the Defendant to pay the remainder of the construction work, and that the Defendant requested to reduce the remainder of the construction cost. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the construction price of this case at KRW 292,50,000 may be recognized.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 62,50,000 ( KRW 292,500,000 - KRW 230,000), and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s agreement on the construction amount was received KRW 230,00,000 from the Defendant, and agreed with the Defendant to pay the construction amount of KRW 30,000,000, and thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction amount was paid in full, but it is insufficient to recognize it solely based on the Defendant’s personal examination results.