1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 10 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 of the evidence No. 1, and evidence Nos. 1 of the witness C, and the purport of witness C’s testimony and pleading, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 10,00,000 with respect to the housing landscaping construction in which the Defendant resides (hereinafter “instant construction”) around March 24, 2014.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that while continuing the instant construction work, the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction contract equivalent to KRW 2,108,000 with the Defendant and completed the additional construction work.

However, unlike the original contract, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial that the Defendant did not directly agree to pay the additional construction cost in addition to KRW 10,000,000, in addition to the original construction cost of the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay the additional construction cost in addition to the original construction cost of KRW 10,000,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff out of the above construction cost of KRW 10,000,000 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 8,000,000 ( KRW 10,000-2,00,000) to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's defense was asserted that the plaintiff did not construct a stone fence on the front side of the parking lot in front of the house, that the red tree 1glus was not planted on the front side of the house, that the drainage was not smooth from the drainage channel of the defendant's house due to the error in the drainage work, and that the defendant paid due to the plaintiff's non-construction or defective construction.