2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

A. In the absence of dispute, on December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the main body building of Jeju-si Cpenta (hereinafter “instant building”) outer wall cover and its appurtenant building (cafeteria) repair (hereinafter “instant construction”) as the price of KRW 44 million (including value-added tax). The Plaintiff received KRW 30 million out of the said price from the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

B. 1) Whether the Plaintiff completed the instant construction is obliged to objectively determine whether the construction was completed in light of the specific contents of the contract for the construction of the relevant building and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da44768, Dec. 23, 1997) as to whether the construction was completed, if the construction was suspended during the intended construction and the scheduled final construction process was not completed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction was completed once the final construction was completed, and the main structure was constructed as agreed upon, and it was completed as a building by social norms. However, if the construction was to be repaired due to incomplete construction, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction was completed, but it is only a defect in the object. The Plaintiff’s appearance and outer wall of the building of this case, which is the front and rear roof of the building of this case, should be objectively determined in light of the detailed contents of the construction contract and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4768, Sept. 18, 2018).

2.3.