1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Sambu case Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tongbu case”) among the “Yungungung-Yung River Construction Works” ordered by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office on November 21, 201, which was ordered by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, the tunnel portion is 23,083.2m2m2, and the remaining part is the 1991m2m2.

The contract amount of KRW 406,200,00 (Additional Tax Map) and the construction period from November 21, 201 to December 31, 2012, with the Plaintiff and F, engaged in the same business under the trade name of “E” (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”). The subcontract was made at the rate of KRW 0.1% from November 21, 201 to December 31, 201.

B. Around November 201, the Plaintiff entered into a re-subcontracting that the construction cost of the instant construction is KRW 7,300/m2 (excluding value added tax) and the payment period is paid according to the cirical height, and the Plaintiff agreed that the other day is supplied by the Plaintiff and incidental expenses, including cement, shall be borne by the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff’s remaining 20,930,000 won (including surtax; hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated by deducting 1,310,000 won from the Defendant with progress payment (the first portion) on January 30, 2012, as well as the remaining 20,930,000 won

4.2.As a result of progress payment (II.), the remainder of KRW 8,000,000, after deducting KRW 459,800,000, respectively, was paid.

However, the Defendant discontinued the instant construction project on May 2012, on the grounds that the payment of the Plaintiff’s progress payment was delayed. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and F re-subcontracted to Nonparty G with approximately KRW 10,000 square meters of construction cost of the instant construction project as KRW 7,500/m2 (6,300/m2 where the Plaintiff provided cement). At that time, G had performed construction work for approximately four-day price of KRW 4,587,00 and had the remainder of construction discontinued.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff again had the Defendant continue the instant construction. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff deducted respectively KRW 10,010,000 (= KRW 8,085,000) from the remainder of KRW 74,530,00,00 (= KRW 1,925,000) from the total amount of KRW 3,891,635, G construction cost, KRW 4,587,00, and KRW 1,925,00) from the total amount of KRW 3,89,635, and KRW 31 December 31, 2012.