1. The Defendant’s KRW 253,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from March 7, 2017 to June 19, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a new construction of “E hotel” located in D in Seopopo City from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); and (b) on March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied sewage of KRW 4,070,00,000 to the teposite (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. As the non-party company’s design of the said new construction works was modified, the Plaintiff was “the primary additional construction works” from the Defendant on June 10, 2016.

(C) The Plaintiff was paid the respective construction cost by the Defendant by September 12, 2016. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 15-18, Eul’s evidence Nos. 15-18, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. In addition to the Plaintiff’s instant construction and the primary additional construction, the Plaintiff is called “the second additional construction work” of the instant hotel defect repair work, etc., which is irrelevant to the Integyptian construction, such as the installation of a tent inspection room, at the Defendant’s request.

The construction cost is KRW 253,00,000 (including value-added tax). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 253,00,000 for the second additional construction cost. The Defendant entered into the first additional construction contract on June 10, 2016, including the second additional construction work on the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Defendant entered into the contract for the first additional construction work on June 10, 2016, and entered into the contract for the final contract amount in accordance with Article 1 of the aforementioned special contract terms and conditions. Since the first and second additional construction cost is a total of KRW 572,00,000,000, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unfair. Rather, the Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 77,00,000 to the Defendant.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, is a interior work, based on evidence as seen earlier, evidence Nos. 6, 19-22, and evidence Nos. 5, and the overall purport of the pleadings.