The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 125,272,00 per annum from May 30, 2019 to August 12, 2020 and the next day.

1. ① On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff agreed from the Defendant to conclude an additional construction project (hereinafter “instant additional construction project”) equivalent to KRW 30,272,00 (value-added tax) between the Defendant and the Defendant during the instant construction project, with the contract amount of KRW 110,00,00 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from March 18, 2019 to April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff agreed to accept the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”); and ② The instant construction project was completed on April 20, 2019 from the acquisition date of the object to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not have any dispute over the payment of progress payment between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff within 30,000,000 won during the instant construction project; and ② The instant construction contract contains no dispute over the payment of progress payment between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on April 17, 2019.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 125,272,00 [the remainder of the construction cost of this case = KRW 95 million ( KRW 10 million - KRW 15 million)] and the instant additional construction cost of KRW 30,272,000], which the Plaintiff claims against the Plaintiff, from May 30, 2019 to August 12, 2020, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum, which is the interest rate under the Civil Act, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the instant judgment, from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Accordingly, the defendant alleged that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because he did not receive the construction cost from D, which is the contractor of the new construction work in this case, due to the plaintiff's interference, but it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion only one, and the above reasons can be exempted from the defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost.