1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

4...

1. Basic facts

A. A. On October 24, 2014, the Defendant ordered the instant construction work on the land C in Yangsan-si (hereinafter “instant construction”), and D submitted a written estimate to the Defendant, which calculated the total construction amount of the instant construction work at KRW 6,600,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the instant construction work.

B. The Plaintiff purchased construction materials and rented equipment to carry out the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-3 of evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction cost of KRW 6,500,000 for the construction of the instant construction work for the construction of a new ground building C in Yangsan-si. The Plaintiff delayed the construction period due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, thereby incurring KRW 11,605,00 for total construction cost.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 4,505,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 7,100,000, which was already paid out of the total construction cost of KRW 11,605,00,000, and delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant only concluded the instant construction contract with Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) represented by Defendant D, and did not have concluded such contract with the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant paid 6,500,000 won of the construction price of this case, and there was no delay in construction work due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Party 1 of the instant construction contract) The fact that the construction cost of the instant construction contract was determined at KRW 6,500,000 does not conflict between the parties concerned. However, the Defendant asserts that the instant construction contract was not concluded with the Plaintiff, and that the instant construction contract was concluded with E represented by D, and thus, the parties concerned of the instant construction contract are examined as to the instant construction contract. (ii) The following circumstances, namely, (i) the Plaintiff’s objection to KRW 6,60,00 for the construction cost of October 24, 2014 (excluding value-added tax) comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3, 2-2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of arguments and arguments.