2. The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

3. The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion are assessed against the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below on the point that theory points out (the rejection of the plaintiff's assertion as to the construction cost of 250,000 won additionally required for the construction of the modern floor, the non-party 1 paid 5,300,000 won to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, the defendant paid 4,000,000 won to the non-party 2 as the construction cost, and the non-party 1 paid 2,30,000 won to the non-party 3 as the boiler construction cost on behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff agreed to deduct each of the above amounts from the construction cost to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant) is just in light of the evidence relation as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law that found the facts erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation as to the process, and it is not acceptable to accept all the arguments of the court below.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are examined.

The judgment of the court below on the point that theory points out (the construction cost of 9,900,040 won added to the modification of the design of the underground foundation part, 8 inner columns shall be justified in light of the evidence relations stated by the court below, and the decision of the court below as to the construction cost of 786,278,880 won paid with money for planting and flooding construction deposit, 420,000 won used for installing carpets, and the price of 420,000 won used for installing carpets shall be paid by the defendant. The decision of the court below as to additional construction, such as where the purchase of materials for which the defendant was responsible, has delayed for a certain period of 10 days, and the plaintiff completed the building of this case on February 4, 198) shall be justified in light of the facts stated by the court below, and it shall not be accepted in the process of the examination, and it shall not be justified in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to compensation for delay, and it shall not be accepted.

3. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 950,000 won out of the construction price of this case to the plaintiff more on March 26, 1988, on the ground that the evidence No. 16 (Receipt) corresponding thereto cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge the above assertion since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and that the witness No. 16 (Receipt)'s testimony cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge it, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, according to the records, the above evidence Nos. 16 (Receipt) stated that the plaintiff received gold 950,000 won from the defendant on March 26, 198, and the plaintiff's name is affixed a seal under the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff stated that it is a site about whether the above documentary evidence is true and the authenticity of the document is disputed. However, although the plaintiff stated that it is a site about whether the above documentary evidence is true and the authenticity is disputed, it seems that the seal of the plaintiff's name attached to the above evidence No. 16 was the same as the seal of the plaintiff's name which the plaintiff recognized the authenticity of the document No. 18-18 (each receipt).

Therefore, the court below did not reject the formal evidence of the above documentary evidence on the ground that the plaintiff, whose name was written as the title holder of the above documentary evidence No. 16, responded to whether the documentary evidence is true or true, but rather, on the ground that the plaintiff's seal affixed on the above documentary evidence was affixed with the seal of the plaintiff, it should be clarified whether the stamp image part of the plaintiff's name was true or not, and as a result, the defendant should be given an opportunity to prove the truth of the above documentary evidence by comparing the seal of the plaintiff, etc., and the court below should have tried further to examine the documentary evidence of the above documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu356, Jun. 12, 199; 8Da31095, Jun. 26, 190; 90Da41959, Apr. 19, 199; 2000Da41959, Apr. 19, 1995).

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part shall be assessed against the plaintiff, who is the losing part. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)