The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant and Jeju-si Construction Co., Ltd., specifying the construction period from April 12, 2017 to April 19, 2017 as the cost of construction (including value-added tax) with respect to the portion of the removed construction among the newly constructed multi-household construction works, and that the said subcontract is accepted (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Defendant, on April 13, 2017, remitted total of KRW 23 million to the Jeju bank account under the name of the Plaintiff, including KRW 6.9 million and KRW 16,100,000 on April 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. After completing the aforementioned removal work, D, the Defendant’s site manager, requested the Plaintiff to newly construct a multi-household house located in C at Jeju, and treat additional wastes (the Plaintiff asserts that additional wastes were generated at the construction site under the instant contract), and the Plaintiff additionally disposed of construction wastes on July 19, 201, August 29, 2017, and September 8, 2017.

The Plaintiff disposed of the construction waste and demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 4,475,90 for the disposal cost of the construction waste. However, on September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 4 million to the Defendant on the ground that the aforementioned D would have been reduced.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not pay the above waste disposal costs to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 4,475,90 and damages for delay.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 3, i.e., (i) pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 17 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act, where at least five tons of wastes occur, a waste disposal plan should be formulated and reported to the competent authority. The wastes asserted by the plaintiff to have disposed of from July 19, 2017 to September 8, 2017 are waste oil pumps or mixtures.