1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,089,800 on the Plaintiff and its relation thereto.

1. Basic facts

A. B, on October 10, 201, contracted the construction of a new urban-type residential house on the land of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul to the Defendant side.

B. On February 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on February 13, 2012, among the foregoing new construction works, the construction cost of the unused, waterproof, and brick (the cost of waterproof construction KRW 1770,000) and the period from February 13, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

3.5. Up to the end, the subcontract was made.

C. The Plaintiff completed the said construction work from around that time to April 22, 2012, by completing the construction work.

As of April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the additional construction cost of KRW 14 million,00,000,000,000 for the above construction cost, excluding KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

4. As of 30. A tax invoice claiming construction cost of KRW 13.4 million was issued and delivered.

E. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the said KRW 13.4 million, and the Defendant respondeded to the effect that the said agreement cannot be acknowledged because the repair work was not completed by content-certified mail on May 9, 2012, and the Plaintiff responded to the said agreement by content-certified mail, etc.

F. The Defendant completed the construction of the said new construction, and obtained approval for use on June 8, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 6, 9, 11, 20, 22, Eul's evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties: (a) D properly agreed on the settlement of accounts on behalf of the Defendant; and (b) on April 25, 2012 when the cumulative amount occurred;

7.6. 2 times, the defect repair amount claimed by the Defendant is not significantly related to waterproof construction works executed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also recognizes the defect.