1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) received a contract from the Defendant for the toilet, paint, visit removal, and water leakage construction among the above-ground C-based buildings; and (b) performed all other construction works, excluding the part of the toilet installation, and the part of the house installation, during the toilet construction by April 28, 2018.

B. The Defendant paid 5,00,000 won directly to the Plaintiff as construction cost, and paid 500,000 won out of the wages that the Plaintiff should pay on behalf of the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received KRW 7,846,00 in total from the Defendant for the toilet construction of KRW 4,331,00, and KRW 3,515,000, and KRW 3,846,000. The construction price was increased by the Defendant’s additional contract for the removal and leakage of water after the visit.

With the Plaintiff’s failure to install toilets or to install furnitures during the construction process, the construction cost has been reduced to KRW 1,236,00.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 1,870,000 won (=7,846,000 won - 1,236,000 won) calculated by subtracting the Defendant’s payment of KRW 5,50,000 (=5,000,000 won) from the final fixed construction cost (=7,370,000 won - 5,500,000 won) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion determined the total construction cost as KRW 5,00,000 at the time of entering into a construction contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not attach toilets to rest and install a house, even if the construction cost was paid in full by the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 3,305,000,000, which was paid by the Defendant to the Defendant, excluding the KRW 3,305,000 used by the Plaintiff for construction costs.

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 13, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 under the construction contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the testimony and arguments of witness D of this court, the defendant and one other are as soon as possible.