2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed, the object of this court's trial related to the defendant B's counterclaim claim is limited to the part of the claim for restitution.

2. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall accept this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 4th through 13th of the judgment of the first instance shall be made as follows:

The Plaintiff asserted that the studio Housing Construction Contract was completed pursuant to the instant construction contract, and sought payment of KRW 33,000,000,000, which was the remainder after deducting KRW 15,000,000 which was already paid from the agreed construction cost of KRW 48,00,000, and value-added tax of KRW 4,80,000, which was the remainder. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have completed the said construction work on the grounds that the construction of the new building under the instant construction contract was removed by the Plaintiff, as seen in the underlying facts.

The plaintiff argues to the effect that since administrative affairs, such as building permission, etc., are the duty of the defendant, who is the owner, it is not responsible for the plaintiff to remove the building that was newly built due to the error of the above work, and thus, the plaintiff should be deemed to have completed the above work. However, the above adopted evidence and evidence, which are recognized by the statement of No. 8 and No. 11, are as follows: ① the plaintiff entered into a contract for construction of new commercial buildings with F, etc. on March 9, 2008 and carried out new construction works at its own expense.