1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,00,000 as well as its annual 6% from August 8, 2014 to December 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in landscaping business under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of environmental-related facilities, civil engineering, construction business, etc.

B. On October 23, 2012, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with Daejeon Metropolitan City and construction cost of KRW 922,929,000 with respect to the project to restore the natural ecology in the Jung-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “original contract”) and the completion completion completion completion date of the project (hereinafter “original contract”).

C. After that, a contract for a construction project was concluded with the following content on the grounds of design change, adjustment of insurance premiums, etc.

1,253,230,00 won due to the increase in quantities on December 27, 2012 due to the increase in quantities on 1,253,230,000 on December 27, 2012 (Evidence 330,301,00 won) in the second amendment of design (Evidence 68,140,000) due to the increase in quantities on June 11, 2013, the third amendment (Evidence 68,140,000) to the 3th amendment of the 1,297,396,000 premium settlement (Evidence 23,974,00 won), 【No dispute is any ground for recognition”, 【No evidence No. 1, No. 1, 230,000 won, each entry of evidence No. 1, 1 of this court's inquiry into the Daejeon Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of the inquiry in the Daejeon Metropolitan City as a whole.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on the part of landscaping construction during the prime contract, and thereafter, concluded an additional construction agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the subcontract as the construction cost has been increased due to the modification of designs over two occasions regarding the prime contract construction work. The Plaintiff completed all the construction works including the said additional construction work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay 153,261,00 won for the remainder of the construction work without justifiable grounds, with only a part of the total construction cost of KRW 458,953,00 (including value-added tax) (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 11,00,000 for the first additional work cost of KRW 142,261,00 for the second additional work cost), and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remaining construction cost and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.