1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

The basic fact is that the defendant is a business operator who engages in artificial fishery in the trade name of "C".

On July 8, 2017, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the “E” Roster (hereinafter “instant store”) located on the first floor of the underground floor of the building on Pyeongtaek-si D’s ground for construction cost of KRW 9 million, and paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 4 million on July 14, 2017 and KRW 6 million on August 3, 2017, in total, KRW 200,000,000,000 to the Defendant.

(A) No. 1-2, 3). Around that time, the Defendant commenced the instant construction, but a large quantity of water has continuously occurred in the instant commercial building during the said construction process, and the Defendant, around August 23, 2017, notified the Plaintiff that it is difficult to continue the instant construction on the grounds of concerns about the increase in construction cost and the possibility of accidents, such as leakage of water leakage, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1-2-1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul's claim for the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the lawsuit was paid 6 million won out of the construction cost of this case from the plaintiff, but the construction cost of this case was suspended under the condition that the plaintiff performed only the construction cost of 4.9 million won during the construction work of this case, which led to the situation that the plaintiff should additionally bear the construction cost of 12.7 million won for the completion of the construction of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the difference in the above construction cost of KRW 1.1 million and estimated additional construction cost of KRW 12.7 million and delay damages therefrom.

Judgment

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s discontinuance of the instant construction work from the Plaintiff while receiving six million won of the construction cost from the Plaintiff, and according to the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the construction cost of the part of the instant construction work performed by the Defendant from India (G), which was around September 2017, is 4.9 million won.