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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2015, the Plaintiff made an oral contract to the Defendant for the construction work of a child care center of the second floor size on the ground C in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 189,00,000, including the cost of removal of the existing building.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 169,00,000, and KRW 50,000,000 on February 5, 11, 100, and KRW 10,000,000 on November 30, 11, and KRW 12.9.9,00,000 on September 10, 12, and KRW 90,000 on December 15, 12.

C. The Defendant directly carried out the instant construction from September 2015, while entering into a subcontract with D on December 21, 2015 for the instant construction cost of KRW 80,000,000 among the instant construction works, and paid KRW 61,00,000 among them to D.

On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the destruction of the instant construction contract, and the Defendant up to that time completed the removal of the existing building, retaining wall construction, and the primary construction of the first floor, and only the columns that form the basis of steel framed construction were built.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 15, 17 (including, if any, branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and images, the result of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments on the merits

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff planned the opening of a child-care center with the Defendant around February 2016 and entered into the instant construction contract, and the Defendant did not properly perform the instant construction, except the retaining wall and the 1st floor foundation construction, even if most of the construction cost was paid by the Plaintiff, and submitted only the cost expenditure data that cannot be objectively reliable.

In light of this point, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff even though he did not have the intention or ability to complete the construction of this case, and entered into the construction contract of this case.

The original defendant from December 2015 to the progress of the construction work.