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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 201, through A, the Defendant’s field director, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the instant furniture installation work (hereinafter “the instant household construction work”), among the cost remodeling work for the second and third floors, 77 U.S.-dong, Seocheon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was subcontracted by the Defendant from the Defendant’s World Public Corporation (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”). A around November 201, the Plaintiff completed the instant furniture construction work.

B. Regarding the instant furniture Corporation, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the World Public Service on September 28, 201 on behalf of the Defendant, and KRW 25 million on November 29, 201, respectively. On December 201, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s creditor on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. On December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with KRW 62 million and value-added tax KRW 62 million on December 22, 201, and received KRW 6.2 million from the D Public Service on January 10, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the contract price of the household construction of this case is KRW 62.1 million (excluding value-added tax), among which 50,1200,000 won was paid, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the contract price of KRW 17.11 million (i.e., value-added tax - KRW 68.31 million, including value-added tax - KRW 51.2 million), and that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the contract price was paid in full.

B. First of all, we examine the construction cost of the instant household construction, and examine the following circumstances, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by A, who introduced the instant household construction project, based on the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, upon considering the aforementioned evidence and witness witness A’s testimony. In other words, A, who introduced the instant household construction project, requested A to reduce the construction cost, and the Plaintiff requested A to pay the construction price on November 4, 201.