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

. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that additional construction cost has occurred, in addition to the part that the Defendant decided to execute in the instant construction contract, as well as the part that the Defendant intended to execute, the additional construction cost of KRW 4,955,00 has been incurred. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s additional construction cost claim against the Plaintiff is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Defendant on an equal amount.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's additional construction cost claims amounting to 4,9550,00 won only with the testimony of the witness F of the trial of the Party F, as stated in the evidence of Nos. 2 through 8, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence No. 16, witness C of the first instance trial, and witness F of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s director C acknowledged the fact that the Defendant had performed any additional construction work such as the addition of the existing blade and new knife with knife with knife with h-350*350,50, the addition of knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife, the modification of existing knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

C. The Defendant’s claim equivalent to the material storage charge is the subcontractor against the Plaintiff before the Defendant entered into the instant construction contract.