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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff provided a heavy flag owned by the Plaintiff at the construction site designated by the Defendant for 20 days from June 2013 to August 31, 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, among the above total amount of KRW 8,802,00, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 550,000 per day to the Plaintiff regarding the work (site of the site of the site of the site of the use of the cryp) on June 27, 2013 and June 29, 2013. However, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 550,00 per day to the Plaintiff regarding the work of the above two days.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff would concurrently engage in practical training on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a skilled man with respect to the mid-term work, and the Defendant did not intend to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 350,000 per day through the aforesaid mid-term work, and not to pay KRW 4.5 million.

In addition, if the amount of damages and the amount of unfair claims are deducted due to the plaintiff's defective work, the defendant should pay 2,566,000 won to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim.

2. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, provided mid-term 20 days during the period from June 2013 to August 31, 2013 to the construction site designated by the Defendant and provided mid-term 20 days to the Plaintiff. As to the work on August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff reduced the amount of KRW 500,000,00 as a general working cost on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a skilled person with respect to the mid-term work. There is no dispute between the parties.

First of all, the daily working expenses for the mid-term work of August 2013 are set up, that is, 450,000 claims by the plaintiff, or 350,000 claims by the defendant.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence 3-1 through 7, Gap evidence 4, 6, 7, 8, and Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, namely, the defendant's work cost to be sought by the plaintiff on July 2, 2013.