1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,00,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from May 29, 2015 to June 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the removal and waste disposal of the sixth floor of the building C in Chungcheongnam-si District (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The details thereof are as follows.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract” (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). [Period of construction: From May 18, 2015 to May 27, 2015: The amount of construction: The “three million Won” of the daily gold KRW contract appears to be a clerical error in the “Hun million Won”.

(Won 40,000,000 won, separate advance payment of value-added tax: On May 18, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 40,000: (1) on May 22, 2015: (20,000 won per day): on May 28, 2015, the remainder of KRW 40,000: (1) on May 28, 2015, the scope of the construction after the completion of the construction: 627 square meters; (2) the entire removal of the floor and walls of KRW 190,00,000; (3) the order for work is issued accurately for waste disposal; and (4) the contract is made without any problem.

B. From May 18, 2015 to May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff performed construction works for the removal of the floor and walls and waste disposal of the instant shopping district under the instant construction contract. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 25,000,000 in total as of the time of the instant construction contract at the time of the instant construction contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 5,000,000 in total, as of May 23, 2015.

C. After that, the Defendant carried out the interior work on the instant commercial building through D (business E). The Defendant written a confirmation of the fact that “F, as the chief of D Integyptian office, claimed KRW 1,000,000 as the cost of removal in the course of carrying out the interior work of the instant commercial building, and removed it with the Defendant’s approval. The cost of removal was written to the effect that “The cost of removal: the floor floor of the existing hospital office, the floor of the walls, the boiler room, the boiler room, the toilet room, the toilet room, and the cost of human resources.”

【No dispute over the basis of recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including a branch number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, images, witnesses G and F, respectively.