1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) requested from the Defendant to fill up 1.5m height of 225m2 and D 2,780m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) entered into a contract with the Defendant to fill up the said real estate on the aggregate of KRW 5,700,000 with respect to the said real estate (i.e., KRW 4,50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (i.e., KRW 1,20,000,000,000,000).

On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the banking on the instant real estate at a height of 1.5 meters, according to the above contract.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 5.7 million won and damages for delay agreed upon to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a height of 1.5 meters of the instant real estate, but rather, the behind portion of the said real estate was higher than that of nearby wells, and the right side was set to be higher than that of neighboring wells.

Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant used the instant real estate as a private soil, reclamation costs (i.e., filling-up costs) did not make it free of charge, and (ii) the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff a total of KRW 4,500,000,000 for the oil cost of 1.0 million to be used in cutting up the filled-up soil at the above height and laying up the water high-water, 2.0,000 won with a height of 70 cm after filling up, but (iii) with a large amount of 1,50,000 won as the oil cost of 15-p truck to be used in the filling-up process.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not fill the instant real estate at the level agreed upon as above, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff completed the above-mentioned ① and ② works, and the oil expense under the above-mentioned clause ③ was paid upon completion of all the embling works in accordance with the above-mentioned agreement. Since the Plaintiff did not complete this, the Plaintiff cannot claim for any embling price against the Defendant.

Even if the Plaintiff’s right to claim for banking costs is recognized, the Plaintiff around July 2013.