1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on October 15, 2013 with regard to the construction cost of KRW 78,800,000,000 for the construction work of a building of a brick structure, light-weight aggregate structure, and detached housing (hereinafter “instant housing”); and (b) entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant on December 5, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and (c) entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, in addition to the instant construction contract, at KRW 13,848,50,00,000 for the construction cost of the instant construction project; (d) the Defendant received KRW 58,00,000 from the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total construction cost of KRW 78,508,000 under the instant construction contract and the delayed payment amount of KRW 91,85,838,000,00.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a contract for construction with a national soil collection cooperative, not a contract for construction with the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant concluded a contract for construction with the Plaintiff, it is not the fact that the Defendant concluded an additional construction contract other than the additional construction of warehouse of the board equivalent to KRW 2.5 million.

In addition, if the Defendant already paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff, and deducted the expenses incurred due to the defect in the instant building, the construction cost payable to the Plaintiff is not remaining.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking into account the parties to the construction contract of this case, the entries in Eul and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the National Soil Collection Cooperative supervised the construction work of this case and received advisory fees from the defendant, and the defendant has paid money several times as the construction cost under the construction contract of this case to the plaintiff.