1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in relation to Gap's testimony as well as in Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole:

A. A. Around November 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a contract from D (hereinafter “D”) for the production and installation of the electric tools, etc. with the construction cost of KRW 7881.6 million; (b) around that time, the Defendant subcontracted the manufacturing and installation of the electric tools to the Plaintiff at KRW 80 million (excluding value-added tax) during the production and installation works.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

Around March 2018, the Plaintiff manufactured and installed electric tools pursuant to the instant subcontract agreement, and the Defendant paid KRW 5,862,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the construction price under the instant subcontract from November 2017 to January 2018.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not include a voltage device on the pre-stage machines produced and installed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted to the Plaintiff that the hydrotension device is naturally included in the scope of the construction work under the instant subcontract (production and installation of pre-stage machines). However, the Plaintiff demanded an additional amount of KRW 26 million for the price for the hydrotension device to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant planned to make a subsequent settlement and paid 26 million won to the plaintiff via D, and thereafter, the plaintiff installed a hydrotension system in the previous season during which the plaintiff had already been produced and installed.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since it is not included in the scope of construction work (production and installation) under the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff installed a hydrotension pursuant to the Defendant’s additional request, and the Defendant also paid 26 million won in return for its additional request. As such, the above KRW 26 million cannot be included in the construction work cost under the instant subcontract. Ultimately, the Defendant is the Plaintiff as well as 88 million = 80 million won in accordance with the instant subcontract.