A. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows.

paragraphs (c) and (c)

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, except for adding the contents stated in the claim, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

hereinafter ground of appeal No. 1

A. (2) The term “Class 1 neighborhood living facilities and multi-family housing construction works” as “instant construction works” and set forth in subparagraph 1.

A. (3) The term “a renovation work” as described in paragraph (3) refers to “a four-story expansion and rooftop work.”

B. Ground of the first instance judgment

A. (3) The following facts are added: “The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 16,90,000,000, out of the construction cost of the 4th floor expansion and rooftop construction work, to the Plaintiff, and the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff is reflected in the construction cost of the instant construction work.”

C. Article 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment / [Evidence 7] added “A evidence” to “Evidence 7” column.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. There is no dispute over the fact that the construction cost of the instant construction project is settled at KRW 451,586,373 (including value-added tax) during the instant construction project. The Plaintiff has received KRW 410,000,000 from the Defendant as the payment of the construction cost of the instant construction project.

Therefore, the unpaid construction cost of the instant construction is KRW 24,686,373 (=451,586,373) - KRW 16,900,000 - KRW 410,000).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 to the Korea Electric Power Corporation in the name of the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant was refunded is no dispute between the parties.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant should have disbursed in relation to the expansion of the fourth floor and the rooftop work.