1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was 1,009,065 won and 1,000 won.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the interior of the second floor of the housing located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Defendant submitted a written estimate (excluding value-added tax) dated September 29, 2016 to the Plaintiff on the aggregate amount of KRW 8,195,200 to the Plaintiff, and subsequently, on September 30, 2016, received KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff and continued internal repair works from October 1, 2016.

C. Since then, the content of the construction was modified upon the Plaintiff’s request for additional construction. On October 6, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written estimate of KRW 14,142,200, including the total amount of KRW 8,195,00, and implemented the additional construction.

In other words, the Plaintiff requested additional construction, and the Defendant conducted the internal repair work by October 17, 2016, and submitted to the Plaintiff a written estimate of KRW 15,220,600, the total amount of 18 October 18, 2016 and a written statement of transaction of KRW 14,963,550, including inputs, materials, etc. from October 1, 2016 to October 17, 2016.

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of fraud. After that, the Defendant, on October 13, 2016, calculated an excessive amount of KRW 624,00,00 in the transaction statement, even though it was KRW 62,400 in the transaction statement, and based thereon, changed the total value of supply in the transaction statement into KRW 14,401,950 (including value added tax, and KRW 15,842,145).

F. As the instant construction cost, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13 million in total, not only KRW 3 million but also KRW 5 million on October 7, 2016, and KRW 13 million on October 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 36, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the parties' assertion 1 is that the plaintiff defendant claims the construction cost of KRW 6,132,600 in total with respect to the instant construction project as indicated below, in a false or excessive manner. The defendant presented the plaintiff at KRW 13 million for the construction cost already paid.