1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) Defendant B, the spouse of Defendant C, newly constructed the instant construction of the first floor D-based housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the Defendant C’s request; (b) around the same day, Defendant C provided labor.

The wages for the labor provided by the Plaintiff are 3,850,000 won in total, and the Defendants agreed to pay daily wages when the above housing is completed.

B. The Defendants asserted that Defendant C’s assertion is a contract owner of KRW 6,800,00 in total with the wall construction and outer wall drone construction among the instant construction works, and the payment of KRW 5,00,000 among them is KRW 1,80,000 in the balance of the construction cost.

However, the defendants performed the repair work due to defects in the construction work executed by the plaintiff, and the cost should be deducted.

2. The written evidence No. 2 of the judgment alone is insufficient to recognize the establishment of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the Plaintiff would provide labor by receiving a daily allowance from the Defendants, the amount of the daily allowance, the period during which the Plaintiff provided labor, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, around August 2016, the Plaintiff, as a brick construction among the instant construction works, was a person who was awarded a contract for ALC block construction in KRW 5,000,000 and received KRW 5,000 as the construction cost, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that only the Defendants provided labor rather than the contract for the instant construction works, among the instant construction works.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed in part as it is unfair.

However, in this case where only the plaintiff appealed, the judgment of the first instance cannot be modified disadvantageously to the plaintiff, who is the appellant, under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be justified.