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

1. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 15,00,000,000 for the remainder of the construction price of this case as seen below, subtracting KRW 10,000 from the household payment of KRW 25,00,000,00 for additional construction cost of this case, and delayed payment of KRW 17,000 for additional construction cost of KRW 32,00,000 for additional construction cost of this case. The judgment of the first instance is obvious that the Defendant only dismissed the remainder of the remainder of the construction cost of this case and only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, since only the remainder of the construction cost of this case is subject to the judgment of the court, it shall be judged only therefor.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, around June 2012, intended to establish “F”, which is a launch management company, on the second floor, Gunsan-si E, and met the Plaintiff, who is a tester, by introducing his wife C.

On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) visited “I”, a franchise of the same type of business located in the H located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) requested the Plaintiff to implement the same construction as the interior of “I”; and (c) approved by the Plaintiff.

B. On June 28, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 83,000,000 for the construction period from June 28, 2012 to July 29, 2012, the intermediate payment of KRW 33,000,000 for the remainder payment by June 28, 2012, the intermediate payment of KRW 25,000,000 until July 14, 2012, and the remainder payment of KRW 25,00,000 until July 14, 2012.

C. On June 28, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 33,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and KRW 25,000,000 to the part payment on July 13, 2012.

The Plaintiff did not complete the instant construction by July 29, 2012, and discontinued construction around that time, and did not receive any contact among the Defendant.

Accordingly, on August 2, 2012, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail that “the said construction contract will be terminated on the ground of the nonperformance of construction works” and arrived at around that time.

(e).