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. Around June 23, 2017, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the local heating (hereinafter “instant construction”) of KRW 51,700,000 for the construction cost (including value-added tax) during the D construction work, and the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work without dispute between the parties concerned or that the Plaintiff completed the construction work can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and No. 1, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 31,80,000 for the construction cost of this case by the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 19,90,000 (=total construction cost of KRW 51,70,000 - already paid KRW 31,80,000) and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 9, 2019 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, while executing the instant construction project, the Plaintiff arbitrarily modified the design provided by the Defendant, and accordingly paid less material costs and personnel expenses, etc., the Defendant should reduce the amount of KRW 16,327,80 out of the construction cost of the instant case, and that if the said amount should be reduced, the unpaid construction cost shall be KRW 3,572,200.

B. However, the instant construction contract (Evidence A No. 2 and B No. 1) stipulates the construction details and the contract amount, but does not stipulate the settlement according to the actual construction volume. Thus, there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff should reduce the construction cost according to the material cost and personnel expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in the course of construction as alleged by the Defendant.

(No evidence exists to deem that the construction cost was settled according to the actual construction volume at or after the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract. Furthermore, evidence Nos. 3 and 4 submitted by the Defendant.