1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) entered into a contract with the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. on December 5, 201 for the construction of new apartment building B, which was contracted by Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. on December 5, 201, to give a subcontract to Defendant Korea Land Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Land”), and Defendant Korea Land Construction is a structure to protect the shores from erosion and infiltration due to flowing water, or from the shores on the shores of C Hoho river or sea, which is part of the said earth and sand installation work.

(hereinafter “instant construction”) re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant sub-subcontract”). (b)

In the subcontract between Defendant A and Defendant Korea, the construction cost of the instant construction was calculated as KRW 26,040,000. The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the construction cost of KRW 26,040,000 when the Plaintiff and the Defendants paid the construction cost of KRW 26,040,000.

C. Around June 24, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the construction project to sloping the natural stone on the slope of C (hereinafter “instant slope construction”) and to screen the C floor and to screen the natural stone (hereinafter “the instant slope construction”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul witness D's testimony at the court of first instance, the result of appraisal E by the court of first instance, the examination of appraiser E by the court of first instance, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for construction cost on the slope surface of this case

A. In the scope of the re-subcontract of this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the floor surface construction of this case is included within the scope of the sub-subcontract of this case, but there is no dispute as to the fact that the construction of the slope of this case is included within the scope of the re-subcontract of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff completed all the construction of the floor surface including the slope construction

3.2