1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2013, the Plaintiff was entrusted by the Defendant with the guest soil work (hereinafter “the instant guest soil work”) on the land of approximately KRW 1,884 square meters (=570 square meters) (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. On June 8, 2013, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff each of the loan certificates of KRW 2.5 million (hereinafter “each of the instant loan certificates”) with respect to the instant passenger soil work cost, KRW 1.5 million as of December 14, 2013, KRW 1.55 million as of December 14, 2013, and KRW 7.5 million as of May 27, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 3 and 7

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. Determination on the claim for guest soil work costs

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,1150,000 won of the guest soil work in this case and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On June 8, 2013, the Defendant, such as the defense of extinctive prescription of the obligation based on the loan certificate issued by the Defendant on June 8, 2013, asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim based on the loan certificate issued by the Plaintiff on June 8, 2013 set-off against the Defendant’s claim based on the loan certificate issued by the Plaintiff on June 8, 2013, when the Plaintiff prepares the above loan certificate against the Defendant’s claim for the land usage fee to be paid under the instant lease agreement, and that the substance

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff received the above loan certificate from the Defendant after completing the guest soil work in this case. Thus, the claim based on the above loan certificate constitutes “claim of the contractor’s construction work” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied. As long as it is evident that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on August 24, 2016, which was three years after June 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case, the record, as long as it is evident that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on June 8, 2013.