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. Basic facts

A. On October 2017, the Defendant has a dispute between the parties regarding the scope of construction related to the six floors among the Geumcheon-gu Busan and the building at the beginning of Busan and the Plaintiff.

It awarded a contract for electrical construction

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000, totaling KRW 2,000,000 on October 27, 2017, November 17, 2017, and December 13, 2017, respectively, as the construction cost under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Plaintiff to pay the electrical construction for the area of the hospital part of the sixth floor of the building to KRW 6,00,000; (b) thereafter, requested an additional construction for the same floor sports center; and (c) upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff completed all electrical construction including the additional construction.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,70,000,00, including the additional construction cost of KRW 7,700,000 (= KRW 6,000,000) less the construction cost of KRW 6,00,000 paid by the Defendant (= KRW 13,700,000 - KRW 6,000), and damages for delay.

B. In light of the Plaintiff’s argument that each entry of Nos. 1 and 3, which appears to be consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction work was not included in the original contract after the contract of this case, was executed by the Plaintiff beyond the scope of construction stipulated in the contract of this case, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff unilaterally prepared it, as well as that the amount of construction cost incurred by the additional construction work is not consistent. The images of No. 6 and No. 4 were merely the images of No. 1 and 6.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a separate agreement on the payment of additional construction costs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.