2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

A. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to entrust the Defendant with the repair of a house owned by the Plaintiff located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and set the price at KRW 34,750,000 (hereinafter the above construction work referred to as the “instant construction work,” and the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the said construction work, and the said written estimate is set at KRW 2,90,000 and KRW 2,600,000.

B. The Plaintiff’s month as of September 4, 2017, to the Defendant.

8. Each of the 4,000,000 Won paid 8,000,000 won in total.

C. The Defendant started the above construction for a period of 10 days and left the removal construction. The removal construction was interrupted by the civil petition of the residents on the roof of the asbestos slate of the above house on the ground that asbestos was combined with the asbestos, and the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,50,000 by the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court 2018 Go-Ma1077, on the ground that it did not comply with the standards for asbestos removal and removal in the roof removal construction containing asbestos as above.

After the removal work was interrupted, the Defendant left the construction site, and around September 17, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the construction contract of this case, and withdrawn the next day.

E. After the Defendant ceased to perform the removal work, the Plaintiff entrusted the instant construction work to another construction business operator and completed the remainder.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 6 through 12, and the whole purport of oral argument]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case, and the defendant was paid KRW 8,00,000 from the plaintiff, but was suspended only part of the removal work in this case and neglected it. Thus, the defendant completed the removal work among KRW 8,00,000, which was paid to the plaintiff as the construction work in this case.