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

1. Where only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that cited a part of the scope of adjudication in this Court, and limited the scope of dissatisfaction to a part of the cited amount of the claim, the entire claim, which was the object of adjudication in the judgment of first instance, is indivisible, but the scope of adjudication in the appellate trial is limited to the extent of appeal filed by the defendant among the parts in this trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da83110, Jun. 28, 2013). In this case, it is inevitable to examine the validity of the claim that falls within the scope of adjudication in question in order to examine the propriety of the claim, such as the occurrence of the claim, etc., and it does not go against

(2) On April 11, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 31,900,000 (including additional tax) for basic construction cost and KRW 37,400,000 (including additional tax) for additional construction cost and KRW 5,500,000 for additional construction cost (including KRW 31,900,000) less KRW 13,200,000, which the Defendant paid at the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da67321, Apr. 11, 200). The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 37,40,000 (including KRW 37,40,000), 13,200,000 for additional construction cost and delay damages. The court of first instance accepted all the Plaintiff’s claim.

In this regard, the Defendant appealed only to the claim for additional construction cost, and the portion of the basic construction cost was excluded from the scope of the judgment in this Court.

However, the following should also be examined to the extent necessary to examine whether the portion of the additional construction cost, which belongs to the scope of the adjudication, is appropriate.

2. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in an engineering work and construction work, and the defendant is a juristic person engaged in a soil work and a dismantling work of non-structure structures, and C is a defendant's employee.

B. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) the amount of construction works for civil engineering works and file works for E monthly stores; (b) the amount of construction works is 209,000.