1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for the 1st floor housing repair work located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and the instant construction work was conducted from August 22, 2017 to October 25, 2017.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 36 million, totaling KRW 10 million on August 22, 2017, KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million on September 13, 2017, KRW 500,000 on October 21, 2017, and KRW 1 million on December 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers), Eul evidence 2, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received the instant construction work from the Defendant and received the instant construction cost and personnel expenses.

A total of KRW 61,562,366 in the construction process of the instant case [the cost of materials = KRW 19,832,366,00 for labor cost of KRW 1.280,000 for KRW 1,625,00 for Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 1,6250,000 for KRW 1,6250 for KRW 7.8 million for Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 7.8 million for Plaintiff was paid only KRW 36 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff for the construction cost of this case (= KRW 61,562,366 for KRW 66), and delay damages.

B. The Defendant asserted that the construction of this case was contracted to the Plaintiff at KRW 25 million.

The plaintiff did not complete the construction of this case and is also defective in some completed construction.

3. Determination

A. As to the method of calculating the construction cost of this case, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the images of Gap evidence No. 9, namely, ① sent text messages to the defendant’s fraudulent act regarding the amount of households, etc. to be installed during the construction work of this case, ② The construction cost of this case is excessively less than KRW 25 million asserted by the defendant in light of the construction cost of this case, ③ even if the plaintiff did not complete the construction work of this case, the defendant did not complete the construction work of