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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant for the removal of warehouse units and office buildings located in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant removal works”) on a set of KRW 100 million (excluding value-added tax) for the construction cost. However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to change the scope of the instant removal works into a contract with the aforementioned removal works into the aforementioned removal works for warehouse units and office buildings (hereinafter “instant removal works”) and the disposal of waste therefrom (hereinafter “instant waste disposal services”); the construction cost of KRW 54 million from KRW 100,000 to KRW 54 million (hereinafter “the instant removal works”); and the construction cost of KRW 20 million from KRW 20,000,000,000 for waste disposal; and value-added tax).

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the removal of asbestos slate in the instant case and delay damages therefrom, on the ground that the Plaintiff received only KRW 20.9 million from the Defendant (which was agreed to reduce the price of the instant waste disposal services from KRW 22 million at the beginning to KRW 20.9 million). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant asbestos slate removal works in the amount of KRW 37.4 million and its delay damages.

B. Based on the judgment, the number of evidence Nos. 1 and 6 is included, and the defendant did not prepare the documents such as evidence Nos. 1 and 6 in the first instance trial, and the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, but this is against the truth and due to mistake.

However, the facts that the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 1 and 6 at the date of the first instance trial are clear in the records. The testimony of the witness D and the defendant's assertion on the above evidence of the first instance trial do not dispute the preparation of the above evidence, and since the defendant does not dispute the facts that the above evidence was prepared, the testimony and the circumstance alone are true in the first instance trial of the defendant.