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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 13 (if there is a serial number, including it; hereinafter the same shall apply), and in the testimony (except for the portion not trusted) of the witness A at the first instance trial, the whole purport of the pleadings may be acknowledged.

The plaintiff is a company that operates heating and cooling machine wholesale and retail business, machinery and equipment construction business, etc., and the defendant is a company that operates air-conditioning and service business.

B. On August 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on the installation of air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant construction”) and on the maintenance and repair of air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement with Hyundai Industries Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Industries Development”), and entered into a contract for construction of air conditioners and air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant construction”). On August 2009, the construction amount on November 30, 2009 (including value-added tax) was KRW 2,846,280,800 (including value-added tax), and the delivery period was from August 200 to October 10, 201, and the defect warranty period was two years after the completion of trial operation.

C. While the Defendant’s additional construction works were being carried out pursuant to the instant subcontract, the Defendant added the amount of KRW 25,532,991 (including value-added tax) at the Plaintiff’s request following the change in the design of modern industrial development.

1) The Plaintiff, while continuing the instant construction, suspended the construction from August 16, 201, and the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant was KRW 2,654,110,850. 2) The Plaintiff, August 18, 2011, expressed to the Defendant that “the Defendant did not have the number of construction workers as of August 16, 201 without prior consultation,” and that the Plaintiff explicitly expressed its intent to waive the construction work without paying the additional construction cost. As such, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant subcontract.