1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 11,688.

Basic Facts

On December 13, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a laundry Factory Building on the ground C (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the Defendant, for the construction of the instant construction work, the contractor, the Plaintiff, the contractor, the date of commencement, the date of completion, the date of completion of the relevant construction work, the “60 days from the date of commencement”, the “350,000,000 won for the construction work”, the “350,000,000 won for the completion of the relevant construction work,” and the “number of delayed days x0.1% for delay” (hereinafter “instant contract”). At that time, the instant construction work commenced.

(A) On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall, at the Defendant’s request, determine the additional construction cost for concrete, steel bars, water pumps, and other additional construction works (hereinafter “additional construction works”) that the Plaintiff constructed beyond the scope of the construction of the instant contract, as KRW 15,00,00 (excluding value-added tax).”

(No. 4 and No. 13). Since then, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff completed, on March 5, 2015, construction of the instant building and delivery thereof to the Defendant, after additional construction works, such as construction of office buildings and additional construction of underground windows, which are not included in the scope of construction of the instant contract, in addition to the additional construction work (Evidence No. 14), and on March 5, 2015. The approval for use of the instant building was completed on or after March 5, 2015.

Meanwhile, the construction cost of the instant construction project, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, is KRW 363,00,000 in total.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above facts, there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-6, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 13-2, the plaintiff's unpaid construction cost and the plaintiff's claim for additional construction cost, barring special circumstances, the defendant already paid 363,000 won out of the construction cost including value added tax of the contract of this case to the plaintiff.