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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff was awarded a contract for the electrical construction from the defendant on February 2, 2016 for the construction cost of KRW 11,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) among the Jeju-si Construction Works (hereinafter "the instant electrical construction") executed by the defendant, and the plaintiff completed the instant electrical construction on October 6, 2016, and written a contract for the construction cost of KRW 11,00,000 under the name of the plaintiff and the defendant, and around that time, the contract was prepared for the construction cost of KRW 1,21,00,000 in total with the person being supplied with the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12.1 million won for the electrical construction price of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 7, 2016 to December 10, 2018, which is the day following the completion date of construction to the defendant, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's argument that the defendant subcontracted the electrical construction of this case to the plaintiff was true, but the defendant then rescinded the contract with the owner of the building in consideration of all the circumstances, and accordingly the subcontract with the plaintiff was naturally rescinded.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay the construction price exceeding the progress payment executed by the plaintiff until the above cancellation date.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant electrical construction contract, as a matter of course, on the ground that the Defendant rescinded the construction contract with the owner.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is claimed.