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

1. The Plaintiff (the actual manager) contracted construction from G (F) to build four G apartment units on the ground, such as Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, etc. (the nine stories per unit (32 households); hereinafter “instant apartment”).

From April to May 2012, the Defendant received a certain amount of construction work upon the Plaintiff’s request from the Plaintiff, and directly procured work staff, temporary materials, etc., and continued to perform the structural part of the construction of the instant apartment.

In the process, on June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a subcontract agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) setting the contract price of reinforced concrete construction among the instant apartment construction works at KRW 750 million.

Around that time, the Defendant drafted an agreement on the participants in construction works (Evidence A 8), a certificate of good faith execution, and a letter of performance of contract that “the Defendant was actually awarded a subcontract by setting the period from May 30, 2012 to September 30, 2012, among the new apartment construction works of this case from D, the contract amount of KRW 710 million among the new apartment construction works of this case, and the construction period from May 30, 2012.”

After the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) drafted again an agreement on the participants in construction works (Evidence A No. 1) stating that “The other pure molding construction works (hereinafter “the instant construction works”) excluding reinforced concrete parts in the construction work specifications; and (b) reduced the contract amount to KRW 530 million; and (c) received KRW 30 million from D as an advance payment for the construction work payment, respectively.

Since then, the Plaintiff did not facilitate the progress of the remaining construction in the construction of the instant apartment to the 7th floor. Around February 10, 2013, the Plaintiff completed a design change with the content that the size of the instant apartment is reduced from the 9th generation of the 19th floor per Dong (total 128 households) to the 24th generation of the 7th floor (total 96 households) and completed it around that time.

On the other hand, the plaintiff on June 18, 2012.