1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the testimony and the purport of the entire argument by the witness C at the trial of the basic fact-finding party, while performing E-Contac where the defendant's son was awarded a contract for construction work, the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract to the plaintiff for the interior construction work of the above construction work and made the plaintiff install facilities, such as the string, attached park, etc., at the defendant's house. Accordingly, C can recognize the fact that he manufactured the string, attached park, etc. and installed and constructed it at the defendant's house.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion supplied a total of KRW 10,100,000 to the housing located in Jinju-si F, which is located in the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied the housing located in Jinju-si with a set of 1 set of water in the main household, balcony 1 set of balcony 1 sets, and a set of 1 set of living room

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,100,000 won for the above goods and damages for delay.

B. Gmos (which seems to be a witness C of the trial) that had no awareness of the Defendant’s argument, found in the Defendant’s house, and performed simple construction work, stating that “Apatch construction of Econdo in which D, the Defendant’s son, is doing so for the Defendant, who is the mother of D, that he/she will replace his/her string and her strings without compensation, for the Defendant, which is the mother of D, with the aim of changing his/her strings and even strings without compensation. The value is within 200,000 won, and the extinctive prescription has already expired.

3. In light of the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that he installed and constructed a sony, attached park, etc. in the defendant's house through C, and unlike the defendant's assertion, C testified that he did not have any means to be present as a witness of a trial and to be installed free of charge, and that he installed a sony and attached park in the South's house without compensation, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for the installation and construction of the sony and attached park, and that the plaintiff's child's representative was awarded a contract for the construction of the sony and attached park.