1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s KRW 113,30,000 among the judgment and KRW 43,00,000 among the judgment and the judgment shall be rendered on September 27, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The part to be corrected among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance] Part 3, Section 7, Section 3, Section B, to Section B.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 113,30,000 won (including value-added tax) among the accrued construction cost of KRW 121,00,000 (including value-added tax) in accordance with the contents of the agreement in this case (the agreement that the defendant would pay the plaintiff the subcontract construction cost unpaid to the plaintiff as the guarantor in B).

B. The defendant's assertion and the defendant's assertion 1) The agreement of this case was prepared for the purpose of the completion inspection by promptly proceeding the construction work with the above certificate and taking the seal on the wind when the defendant urged B to complete the new house construction work on the ground of the Gangnam-gu Seoul site (hereinafter "the construction work of this case") by May 30, 2012, which is the initial contract period. It is invalid since the defendant did not prepare the plaintiff's written confirmation, it is not only invalid (the above written agreement does not state the name of the construction work, unit price, etc.) and the defendant's deception.

In addition, the part on the payment date is mentioned after the defendant affixed and sealed.

B) Part of the instant construction directly from B (such as the construction of electric and fire-fighting equipment, etc.; hereinafter “instant electric and fire-fighting construction”).

(B) not only is it unclear whether a subcontract was executed with respect to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, entered into a subcontract with EP Construction Co., Ltd. and D).

(C) The Defendant is the entire construction cost of this case to B, which was subcontracted by B to the Plaintiff.