1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the construction period for repairing the septic tanks of the building D located at the time of the Government owned by the Defendant was from March 10, 2018 to March 11, 2018, and the construction cost was KRW 1,600,000 for each of the construction costs (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and completed the construction under the said contract.

However, the Defendant did not pay the construction cost under the instant construction contract, thereby incurring damages of KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff, including the amount equivalent to the said construction cost and other expected damages.

(On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above construction cost and terminated the instant construction contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above construction cost and the expected damages, the sum of the construction cost and the expected damages, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Around May 2018, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff, along with two employees, found the Defendant’s Government-Si D’s building located in D, and that part of the construction related to the purification work was performed.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff performed a septic tank repair work in accordance with the agreement with the Defendant, even if there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff performed a septic tank repair work according to the agreement with the Defendant, because it is different from the actual conditions, such as that the date of the construction work is indicated as “3.”

(1) The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s primary record of the purification of the Defendant’s building, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, are not easily known solely on the basis of what the content of the construction agreed with the Defendant. Rather, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 12 and the overall purport of the pleadings.