1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 15, 2010, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to undertake construction cost of KRW 90,000,000 for the construction work of the building on the ground of Busan Shipping Daegu C (hereinafter “instant building”). The construction of the instant building requires the retaining wall first for the construction of the building, and accordingly, the Defendant and the completion of the construction period from November 25, 2010 to November 30, 201, with respect to the retaining wall construction, the construction cost of KRW 650,00,000, and the construction cost of the retaining wall construction under the payment terms after the completion of construction (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff’s completion of the retaining wall construction around November 30, 2010 according to the instant contract, and the purport of the entire statement in evidence evidence Nos. 2 and evidence No. 1 is recognized in full view of all the arguments.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 6.5 million and delay damages therefor.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the assumption of the obligation to assume the responsibility for exemption was agreed upon between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D third parties to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost under the instant contract to D when the Plaintiff transferred the right to the construction of the instant building to D, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction cost to D.

The statement of No. 1, which seems consistent with the Defendant’s argument, is merely the entry of the Defendant’s statement, and there was a three-party agreement as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff consented to the above exemption from liability, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. (i) The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the above claim for the construction cost has expired by prescription; thus, the above construction cost should be paid after the completion of construction; and the above construction cost should be paid after the completion of construction; and on Nov. 1, 2010.