1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff had held the claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 13,600,000 against the defendant (hereinafter "the claim for construction cost of this case") by removing remodeling construction work for the defendant's house located in the reinforcement military from October 2, 2008 to October 23, 2008, and that the plaintiff was paid KRW 5,00,000 out of the above claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 8,60,000 and delay damages.

2. The defendant's defense of the expiration of the extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the above remaining claim for the construction price. Thus, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim for the construction price of this case shall be three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act, and the period of payment shall be October 23, 2008, which is the expiration date of the above construction work. Since it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 12, 2015, which is three years after the said lawsuit was filed, the above remaining claim for the construction price of this case had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed, the defendant's defense is with merit.

As to this, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for fraud due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the instant claim for the construction cost. The Defendant approved the full amount of the said remaining construction cost obligations in the criminal conciliation proceedings conducted in parallel with an investigation on November 27, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the waiver of the prescription profit is limited to the acceptance of the obligation, but is dissatisfied with the circumstances after the completion of the statute of limitations. As such,

Since it is alleged to the effect that the statement No. 2 constitutes “A”, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the criminal conciliation procedure was conducted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on November 27, 2013, and the notification of the result of criminal conciliation was made to the Plaintiff until November 18, 2013.