1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction of the interior works of a factory building and office (hereinafter “instant building”) in Ansan-si C from the Defendant was contracted to KRW 10,000,000, and the construction was carried out according to the drawing set by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant primary construction”) and the freezing business operator completed the additional construction work, including the implementation of additional aesthetic work due to the convenience lane of the floor of the cooling and freezing room installed in the instant building.

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 30,649,700,000 out of the total service cost and construction cost due to the instant Primary and Additional Works, and received KRW 14,00,000 from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the service cost and the construction cost (=30,649,700 won - 14,000,000 won).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant determined that the initial construction amount was KRW 10,000,000 and concluded a contract for the interior works of the instant building by oral means, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 14,000,000 to the interior works of the instant building as the interior works of the instant building is not a dispute between the parties.

However, in full view of the purport of the arguments presented by the Plaintiff at the first instance court and this court, the following circumstances, namely, ① there is no contract agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which is a disposal document that specifically proves the fact that a contract for construction works was additionally entered into with respect to the part exceeding the above KRW 10,000 (the part concerning the supplementary construction works claimed by the Plaintiff). ② There is no objective evidence as the drawings or transaction specifications, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff are not objective, and there is no sufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion. ③ At the Plaintiff’s demand for additional expenses, the Defendant exceeded KRW 10,00,000 of the above construction cost as seen earlier.