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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 13,00,000 and the construction period of KRW 10,000 from August 10, 2015 to August 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 12,00,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination 1) The fact that the construction contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is without dispute between the parties. Although the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work of this case was completed, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the construction work was completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. However, since the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was retired during the construction work and up to the time of the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work was completed, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the construction cost of this case is recognized only within the scope of KRW 4,00,000,000, and since the Plaintiff received the payment of the construction cost of KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant, the Defendant did not dispute between the parties, and thus, it is reasonable for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 4,00,000 (= 4,000,0000, 2,0000, 2,0000 per annum for delay calculated after the completion of the construction work of this case, the Defendant’s obligation to pay 15% per annum.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder should be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

However, the first instance court.