Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work of the second floor of the building in C, the second floor of the building in C (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the construction cost of KRW 40 million and the construction period from June 18, 2018 to July 17, 2018.

B. As to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from the Defendant around June 15, 2018, KRW 5 million around June 21, 2018, KRW 35 million in total, and KRW 10 million around July 12, 2018.

C. While the Plaintiff was carrying out the instant construction project, the Plaintiff suspended the construction project due to a dispute with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant as the price of the instant construction amounting to KRW 45 million, but it was difficult for the Defendant to talk with her husband. However, the Plaintiff prepared a written contract to prepare KRW 40 million on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to talk with her husband.

B. In the course of performing the instant construction project with the Defendant, the Plaintiff recognized it as an additional construction work and agreed to receive the additional construction cost, if the construction cost of more than 300,000 won is more than the cost of the material cost.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff made an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 15,135,810.

C. Since the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, it sought payment of KRW 10 million which was not paid out of the construction price of the instant case to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 45 million - KRW 35 million) and the total of KRW 15,135,810 which was paid out of the additional construction price, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 2 and 3, is insufficient to acknowledge that the construction cost of the instant case was 45 million won or more, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost of the instant case as 45 million won.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.