1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,157,792 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 9, 2015 to December 29, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 201, the Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for the construction work that newly constructs two-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of old-si C (U.S.) (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 15 million for the construction cost.

B. Around December 2011, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, and received construction payment from the Defendant respectively from the Defendant to KRW 30 million on March 28, 2011, and KRW 10 million on April 20, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff (=15 million - KRW 30 million - KRW 10 million).

The plaintiff asserts that the above additional construction cost should be paid as the additional construction work, such as steel framed in an amount equivalent to KRW 35 million, according to the safety diagnosis at the defendant's request.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to regard the steel framed, etc. as an additional construction, and instead, considering the overall purport of pleadings in the statement No. 11-4 of the evidence No. 11, it is recognized that the Plaintiff performed construction works to reinforce the steel framed and the steel framed in order to reinforce the physical floor slabs of the instant housing in light of the overall purport of pleadings. Thus, it cannot be deemed an additional construction only for the defect repair work.

The plaintiff's argument about additional construction costs is without merit.

B. According to the purport of the Defendant’s defense, the Plaintiff’s provision of 3,039,180 won oil in total at the oil station operated by the Defendant from July 2, 2011 to October 12, 201, as the Plaintiff’s provision of 3,039,180 won should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s construction cost.

The defendant's defense in relation to this is justified.