1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 5,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 500,000 as the construction cost, and the delay damages of KRW 5,50,000 as the construction cost, because the Plaintiff was requested to repair the instant house located in the Gun C (hereinafter “instant house”) and completed the construction on or around August 25, 2009.

B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 12, Gap evidence No. 14 through 16, and Gap evidence No. 18, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i) the defendant transferred to the house of this case on April 7, 2009 and resided therein; (ii) the defendant claimed for the repair subsidy of abandoned houses on August 25, 2009 and received KRW 5 million with the repair subsidy on August 31, 2009; (iii) around that time, the housing of this case was flood control, gas boiler installation, floor construction, etc.; and (iv) the plaintiff filed a regular report of value-added tax on the output tax amount of the second half of the year of 2009 as the "Submission DD Research Institute, Cheong Chang-gun, Cheong-gun, supply price of 4,710,000, tax amount of KRW 471,000."

However, the following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence Nos. 17, Eul evidence Nos. 17 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., (i) the plaintiff appears to have been in a relationship with the defendant at the time of the instant house repair work, and there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the construction cost and the payment method before and after the commencement of the construction work (the plaintiff did not have a relationship with the defendant, and was made at the time of the construction work payment). The plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 19 upon asserting that the plaintiff had not been in a relationship with the defendant, and had paid the construction cost. According to the above evidence, the plaintiff suffered from the upper right-hand fladul, around May 3, 2009, received surgery on May 4, 2009, received hospital treatment from July 21, 2009 to July 21, 2009).