1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 187 million (including additional taxes), June 4, 2012 on the date of commencement, and July 10, 2012 on the date of completion of construction with respect to interior remodeling works in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff completed remodeling construction.

C. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 153 million for the construction cost from the Defendant (i.e., KRW 145 million for the construction cost of KRW 8 million for the construction cost of KRW 145 million) and was not installed for the bathing room of KRW 105 on the first floor. The Plaintiff’s bathing room construction cost of KRW 425,700 for one room is KRW 425,700.

[The cost of 8,700 won (20,000 won ± 23,000 won ± 8,000 won x 2) fixed in front of 12,00 won (6,000 won x 8,000 won x 1) per kilogram unit price of 17,000 won (8,500 won x 2) per head of 8,700 won (200,000 won ± 23,000 per head of x 8,000) for each bathing room glass wall). D.

In addition, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant paid 4.9 million won on behalf of the plaintiff for the purchase cost of computer to be paid by the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 28,674,300 won unpaid (i.e., KRW 187,00,000 - KRW 153,00,000 - KRW 425,700 - 4,900,000 on the following day of the completion of the instant construction project) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from July 11, 2012 to August 25, 2017, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.

The Plaintiff purchased 24 fire doors between the Defendant and installed them with other materials, and added 18 parts of the guest room. 7 million won.