The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and found the following facts: (a) the work consultation as of August 17, 2009 was made between B and the Defendant, a subcontractor, not Doroto, a subcontractor, and the contents of the subcontract; (b) there is room to view the contents of the subcontract as pertaining to the soil work of “out-of-project site”; (c) there is no other material to Doroto and the Defendant discussed about the settlement of volume in addition to the above work consultation, even though there is a significant difference between the quantity of soil work and the subcontract quantity claimed by the Plaintiff; and (c) the F was in a position to verify the work report on behalf of B.

(4) In light of other data, it is difficult to deem that Doroto actually performed the soil work of the quantity indicated in the work log, and it is difficult to deem that an agreement was made with the Defendant to settle the construction cost according to the stated quantity, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of soil work cost, etc. according to the construction volume based on the written work log was dismissed, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that Doroto actually agreed to settle the construction cost.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, (i) Doroto is calculated by applying a unit price to the expected quantity when the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for soil works and structures works from the Defendant; and (ii) the expected quantity of the said application is the same as the quantity of soil works, which the Defendant was awarded a contract for site development works from B and is based on the design drawings offered by B.