1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 2015, the Defendant awarded a contract for the extension of the E-ground neighborhood living facilities from D, and subcontracted to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2015 by setting the construction cost of KRW 21 million for the construction work period and December 15, 2015 for the construction work period (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the entire construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. After completion of the Plaintiff’s assertion, D, the owner of the instant construction, filed a report on extension to the competent authority through consultation with the public official in charge, and the Plaintiff modified the purification tank facilities. At D’s request, the construction of the Changhogll was conducted on the ground of reinforced glass, instead of the general plastic frame that the original Defendant originally requested to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff conducted the additional construction with a written estimate submitted to the defendant prior to the execution of each additional construction work. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 6,037,00 ( KRW 4,747,000, KRW 1,290,000, KRW 4,747,000) and damages for delay.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., whether the Plaintiff had agreed with the Defendant regarding the additional construction or the Defendant’s consent, regardless of whether or not the Plaintiff was involved in the additional construction as alleged, rather than there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion itself appears to have carried out the construction as alleged in the Plaintiff’s request, and ② the Plaintiff asserted that the additional construction for the septic tank was carried out in accordance with the specifications of Gap evidence No. 4 as a result of the consultation. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the additional construction for the septic tank was carried out.