1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount among the parts concerning the principal lawsuit exceeds the amount ordered to be paid.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to enter into a contract with the effect that it will accept a subcontract by setting the construction cost of KRW 125,00,000 (value-added tax) and the construction period from June 15, 2017 to July 15, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to change the construction cost of KRW 129,000,000 (value-added tax) and the construction period from October 12, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the increase and decrease in quantity in the above subcontract.

B. During the process of the construction, the Plaintiff completed all of the construction works including additional construction works, such as removal of backboards and installation of Aluminum bags, and upskilling installation in the same window. The additional construction cost is KRW 38,087,95 (including value-added tax).

C. The Plaintiff is a person who received from the Defendant or received a direct payment from the Defendant in total as KRW 78,096,00.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 or 6 evidence, appraiser G's appraisal result, the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the factual premise above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 101,891,995 won [=141,90,000 won x 129,000 won x 1.1.) 38,087,995 won - 78,096,00 won] and damages for delay, which are calculated by deducting the amount of the plaintiff’s total sum of the original construction cost and the additional construction cost that the plaintiff has become extinct due to partial repayment, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that an amount equivalent to value-added tax for KRW 38,087,95 should also be paid. However, the above additional construction cost is calculated based on value-added tax, as seen earlier, so the Plaintiff’s assertion on the above part is without merit.

On the one hand, the defendant's assertion of partial repayment of the construction cost is judged.