1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment as to the conclusion of additional construction contracts is added by the parties as to whether to conclude additional construction contracts, and thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to whether to enter into an additional construction agreement

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to execute the construction cost of KRW 8,300,000 as a result of the Defendant’s request for additional construction works, such as C and C, in the Do that the Defendant originally contracted for Cheongju-si Cheongju-si Cheongwon-si Cheongwon-si Cheongwon-si Da, and the Plaintiff was performing construction works. (2) The Defendant did not conclude an additional construction contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, except for the first construction contract that sets the construction cost at KRW 18,00,000, with respect to the Cheongju-si cafeteria-si.

B. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the testimony of the witness E of the trial party, namely, ① the specifications of the additional construction works submitted by the plaintiff (Evidence No. 2) and the items and amount of receipts or transaction documents submitted by the subcontractor or material supplier who actually performed the construction after receiving a subcontract from the plaintiff, are accurately identical, and some subcontractors are actually paid the construction cost from the plaintiff. If the plaintiff did not conclude the additional construction contract as alleged by the defendant, it appears that the subcontractor would be responsible for performing the construction work as above and there is no special reason to pay the construction cost. ② E performing the construction work after receiving a subcontract from the plaintiff among the interior works of this case is included in the first construction work.