1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The facts that the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice; the original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendant by public notice; the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered on March 13, 2017; and the fact that the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on the 15th of the same month is apparent in the record.

If there are these circumstances, the defendant could not observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from March 13, 2017, which became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant, on October 2, 2014, contracted by the Ministry of National Defense to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2014, refers to the “instant construction” and “the instant construction”).

(1) The instant construction contract was subcontracted as of November 30, 2014 (including value-added tax) and as of November 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff completed the construction work under the instant construction contract, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 220 million to the construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant filed a claim for the remainder of the construction project and the additional remainder of the construction cost of KRW 231 million under the construction contract of this case after deducting value-added tax of KRW 80 million for which the plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice from KRW 230,000 under the construction contract of this case, and KRW 235,380,000,000,000 for the remainder of the construction project of this case and KRW 123,380,000,000 for the remainder of the construction project of this case (i.e., KRW 223,000,000,000 for the additional remainder of the construction cost of KRW 12,38,00,000 for the construction cost of KRW 22,23,00,000