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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction cost of KRW 24 million in the construction cost of the 6EA and Manman 6EA during the construction period of C, i.e., ground-breaking, refix, pipes, pipes, distribution works 2,200m, iron poles 9m (Telecommunications Owners) and Manman 6EA.

(B) In relation to the four stations, the defendant shall set up a wrong location on the side of the ordering company and agree to pay the plaintiff additional KRW 2 million to the plaintiff with regard to the construction works additionally ordered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff completed the above construction work.

C. The Defendant paid 2,9350,000 won to the Plaintiff including the above construction cost, additional construction cost, and purchase cost of materials.

Although the defendant paid 1 million won to the plaintiff via D, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff received from the Defendant a contract from the Defendant regarding the ground-breaking, re-speak, pipes, and distribution works, one sheet 1,300 meters, two stations 700 meters, three stations 50 meters, four stations 450 meters, five stations 200 meters, and five stations 200 meters.

B. Despite the completion of the construction work by the Plaintiff pursuant to the above contract, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost related to the Plaintiff’s 3 and 4 stations.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 14,363,50 [10,363,550 (10,909 won perm) life allowances of KRW 10,363,550 [4,00,000 won per m)] to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was concluded with respect to the part exceeding 2,200 meters between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had been engaged in construction works exceeding 2,200 meters (except for the parts executed in error), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the above facts, the construction cost shall be KRW 26 million, including the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for construction works with 222 million meters and the part of erroneous construction works.