1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 101,173,940 and KRW 80,173,940 among them.

1. Determination as to the claim for construction price

A. On May 18, 2013, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in a construction business with the trade name of C. (2) The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract between the Defendant and G and H on the G and H ground owned by the Defendant.

According to the new design drawings (Evidence No. 7) of the above 200s, each Dong includes floor civil engineering works, steel frame works, and printing team works for each Dong in the construction of the above 200s.

(B) On July 6, 2013, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for construction price of KRW 50,00 (No. 4) to D on July 6, 2013, with the construction period of KRW 123,00,000 of the construction cost (No. 4) on the other hand, on the following grounds: (a) the two-way construction works among the construction works for the two-way construction works in the instant case; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to D around April 2014 with the construction cost of KRW 50,00,000 among the construction works for the two-way construction works in the instant case.

As a result, the Plaintiff was excluded from the construction contract for the construction project for the new construction project for the two houses of this case, and the construction cost for the said contract was changed to the amount of 50,000,000 won for the construction project for the two houses of this case, from the original contract cost for the construction project (as seen in the front and rear, there is dispute between the parties as to the above amount).

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not perform the construction works of the second team among the second team of this case from the court of first instance to the court of first instance, and suspended the construction works of the second team of this case, and the defendant completed the construction works of the second team of this case to D on the contract basis of the construction works of the second team of this case (the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the construction work on the ground that the plaintiff was not able to prove that he was sexually dead (the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the construction work on the ground that the plaintiff was not able to prove that he was sexually dead). On the fourth hearing date of the court of fourth, "the plaintiff completed all other construction works except the second team construction works