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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who operates the dismantling construction business, etc. with the trade name B. 2) The Defendant is the contractor of the construction project for the new construction of the D Han-ro hotel located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant hotel”) (hereinafter “new construction project”).

B. The hotel of this case has nine traditional Korean-style buildings, and a museum, which is a modern building, is constructed below it.

C. The Plaintiff, among the new construction works of the instant case, proceeded with the “Ssking (referring to the buildings used as the open space among the hanok buildings) construction works,” “Ssking (referring to the entrance gate of the hanok building) construction works,” “Sagle construction works,” and “Saemnite construction works,” respectively.

The Plaintiff, who is supplied with the Defendant, issued an electronic tax invoice with the following content:

Items 1 of the value-added tax (including value-added tax) item 3,00,000 won on June 12, 2015, the D Non-Limit Corporation of KRW 3,300,000 on September 30, 2015, and installation and dismantling of the D field vision of KRW 3,300,000 on September 3, 2015 3. 11,000 on December 11, 2015;

E. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, E's testimony of the first instance court witness E, part of the testimony of the first instance court witness F, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff contracted 3,300,000 won for the non-refluoral construction work from the Defendant, and 11,000,000 won for the museum non-refluoral construction work, and all of the above construction work was carried out.

However, since the defendant has not yet paid the above construction cost, it is obligated to pay 14,300,000 won, which is the total sum of the above construction cost, to the plaintiff.

The Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015, paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff was paid as repayment for the payment of the purchase price for the king, king, and the construction cost, which was issued by the Plaintiff as of June 12, 2015, and thus, it does not constitute the details of reimbursement for the construction cost that the Plaintiff seeks payment

B. Defendant.