1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant exceeding the amount that orders the plaintiff to pay.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 11, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the term “construction work title C, construction location D, Gwangju Metropolitan City Mining District D, building area of 175.25 square meters, total floor area of 486.23 square meters, construction period from July 20, 201 to November 20, 2011, contract amount of 200,000 won,” and written a written contract for construction work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and the said written contract is written in Article 12 (Special Engineer) of the said contract.

B. The Plaintiff started construction in accordance with the instant construction contract and completed new construction on November 20, 201, and undergone a pre-use inspection on November 22, 2011. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 190 million in total, which is KRW 70 million in the first intermediate payment, KRW 50 million in the second intermediate payment, KRW 30 million in the second intermediate payment, and KRW 40 million in the completion money.

C. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 6,195,000,000 (hereinafter “instant prior suit”) calculated by deducting the non-construction portion out of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 10,000 from the Gwangju District Court 2013Da3209, and the Defendant’s additional construction cost was added at the Defendant’s request. On July 3, 2013, the instant lawsuit was concluded to the effect that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff. To waive the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim” (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

Accordingly, the defendant paid 3 million won to the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of value-added tax on the construction cost of the instant construction contract to the instant lawsuit, the Defendant also included the said value-added tax in the subject matter of the instant lawsuit, for which the conciliation was concluded, and the subject matter of the instant lawsuit is the same as that of the instant lawsuit, and thus, the instant lawsuit is a duplicate lawsuit.