1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was awarded a contract for C Corporation (hereinafter "the construction of this case") from the crossing-gun, and the plaintiff was awarded a lump sum subcontract for the construction of this case from the defendant to 82% of the original contract price.

Around September 2014, the Plaintiff could not proceed with the construction as the subcontract price that was initially agreed upon due to a large amount of construction cost, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to supplement the additional cost incurred by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asked the Defendant to complete the instant construction, and the Plaintiff continued and completed the instant construction.

Therefore, the defendant should pay KRW 171,380,50 of the construction cost invested by the plaintiff in accordance with such settlement agreement.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff increased the subcontract price on September 2014, which was more than expected construction cost, but the Defendant rejected the request.

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the instant construction work, and thereafter, the Defendant directly completed the instant construction work through D’s work under its jurisdiction and completed it on December 2014.

The defendant has already paid the subcontract price to the plaintiff, and there is no further settlement to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether to recognize the agreement for settlement of accounts, or in light of the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the witness D’s testimony and the entire purport, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant agreed to settle the construction cost invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff around October 2014, and accordingly, the instant construction work was performed by the Plaintiff even after October 2014.

① Not only before October 2014 but also after the fact that the construction of the instant case was actually carried out, D, from the court of first instance, to the F, who is the representative director of the Defendant, around September 2014.