1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2014, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 15 million from the Defendant on November 25, 2014, with the intention to carry out the interior works of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Apartment 108 Dong 1701 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Plaintiff removed the instant apartment with the instant construction project, and completed the construction of an import place, such as the removal of the instant apartment, the removal of the interior, the replacement of the door, the extension of balcony, the installation of a balcony room room, the installation of Hanystroom-type furniture, the installation of a bath room, the removal of two bathing rooms, and the installation of a high-quality lighting replacement, the installation of a ceiling, the installation of prime wood straw, the installation of a paint, the printing straw, the printing straw, and the entrance and kitchen wall around the end of December 2014, and received KRW 20 million from the Defendant on December 19, 2014.

C. Upon completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the balance of the construction cost at the time of issuing a written estimate (calculated as KRW 46.6 million in total) prepared on January 24, 2015, but the Defendant refused to do so. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s word “the outline for contact and extracted,” and received a written estimate from other companies, stating that the instant construction cost is equivalent to KRW 30,693,00,00 from other companies. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the word “ACD Docs” to the Plaintiff.

Even after that, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the continuous construction cost, but the Defendant rejected the payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost of this case was KRW 45 million, and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 600,000,000,000 for additional expenses, and KRW 2.88,000,000,000,000,000 for the Kimchi air-conditioning and removal and removal of walls, and KRW 2.88,00,00.