1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Assertion and determination

A. In addition to the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, witness C and D, the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for 54,000,00 won for the removal of the inner wall and floor (the second floor, the third floor, the fourth floor), rooftop structure, underground, the first floor, the second floor, the stairs and walls of the second floor, and the removal of the wall from the defendant around April 20, 2015 (hereinafter "the first construction"), and the removal of the bricks and drums where the outer wall of the above Mour is enclosed during the first construction, the plaintiff was required to remove the above outer wall and other underground, and the removal of the elevator hole is called "additional construction" after obtaining approval from the defendant.

The fact that the construction work was completed by June 10, 2015, the additional construction cost following the removal of outer walls is KRW 4,600,000, and the additional construction cost following the removal of underground and elevator holes is KRW 5,550,000, and the defendant paid only the additional construction cost for the removal of underground and elevator holes among them to the plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,600,000 for additional construction cost following the removal of outer walls.

The plaintiff asserts that since the removal work of the first and third floors other than outer walls was conducted as an additional work, the defendant should pay additional construction cost of KRW 8,350,000. However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for additional construction cost of this part is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the removal of outer walls claimed by the plaintiff as additional construction was included in part of the primary construction, or there was no agreement on the additional construction cost, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, according to the above evidence, the first construction is deemed not to include the removal construction of outer walls as the removal construction of the interior wall of the target telecom, and the plaintiff.