The defendant's 49,908,100 Won and its 6% per annum from June 13, 2019 to February 4, 2021 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction of the three-story building on the land of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the term “the construction cost of KRW 350,000,000 ( separate value-added tax), and the construction period from June 14, 2013 to September 13, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the instant construction cost of KRW 30,00,000 on June 12, 2013, KRW 25,000,00 on June 18, 2013, KRW 20,000 on July 5, 2013, KRW 20,000 on July 17, 2013, KRW 30,000 on August 3, 2013, and KRW 30,000 on August 7, 2013, KRW 30,000 on August 30, 200, KRW 40,000 on August 17, 2013, KRW 17,000 on September 20, 200, KRW 30,000 on September 30, 200, KRW 300 on the basis of 30,00 on the basis of:

(c)

On November 2013, the Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction work, and thereafter, the Defendant continued to perform the remaining construction work directly, and obtained approval for the use of the instant building on December 13, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Eul witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not receive the remainder of KRW 28,520,100 (including value added tax), excluding KRW 315,00,000,000, which occurred until the suspension of the instant construction work (including value added tax). Under the Defendant’s direction, the Plaintiff did not receive additional construction costs of KRW 30,916,60 (=28,106,000) (i.e., KRW 315,00), and (ii) additional construction costs of KRW 30,916,60 (=28,106,000) x 1.1).

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the fixed construction cost and the additional construction cost of KRW 59,436,700 (=28,520,100) and the delayed damages.

B. On November 201, 2013, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction. Accordingly, the Defendant directly conducted the remaining construction and obtained approval for use of the instant building around December 13, 2013, as seen earlier.