1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant on April 4, 2008 against the plaintiff 5.4 billion won and 4.4 billion won among them.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2007, the Plaintiff (contractor) and the Defendant (contractor) concluded a construction contract for the construction work of a safe factory on the ground, including Ansan-si, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the construction work cost of KRW 8.25 billion including value added tax, and the construction period until December 31, 2007.

B. After October 15, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the change of construction contract (hereinafter “instant change contract”) with the construction period of 12.65 billion won, including value-added tax, which increased the construction cost of 4.4 billion won, and the construction period of 31 July 2008.

C. Around April 7, 2008, the instant construction was completed and approved for use. Since then, on October 30, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with respect to the interior construction of the said newly constructed factory (hereinafter “the instant interior construction”) with the amount of construction cost of KRW 2.49 billion including value-added tax, and the Plaintiff completed the instant internal construction.

On the other hand, on May 18, 2007, the Plaintiff decided on December 31, 2007, to lend one billion won out of the facility funds received from the new bank upon the claim for the first payment for the completion of the instant construction to the Defendant, and on the same day, the Plaintiff transferred the account transfer to the Defendant amounting to one billion won.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. With respect to the claim by the parties concerned that the plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 4.4 billion and the loan KRW 1 billion and damages for delay, the defendant, upon D's recommendation that was the representative director of the plaintiff, used the method of remitting the amount of KRW 1 billion among the facility funds that the plaintiff received from the new bank to the defendant and increasing the amount of KRW 1 billion for accounting purposes.