1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "the plaintiff completed the interior works in accordance with the contract of this case") stating "the plaintiff shall dismiss "the plaintiff shall complete the interior works in accordance with the contract of this case" as "the plaintiff shall complete the interior works in accordance with the contract of this case and the additional construction works in an amount equivalent to KRW 5,300,00,00,000"; (b) each part of the evidence Nos. 3 and 7 through 9 submitted by the defendant to the court of first instance is insufficient to recognize that D, who is not the defendant, contracted the plaintiff to contract the plaintiff with C cafeteria, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that D, other than the defendant's determination on the defendant's assertion, is the same as the part of the

2. The portion to be determined additionally

A. As to the assertion that the construction cost is excessive compared to the neighboring interior fishermen, the Plaintiff’s claim was based on a few times or low price compared to the neighboring interior fishermen, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the difference between the market price and the market price is 30,120,000 won should be offset against this part. 2) In addition, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion, and as long as the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost as stipulated in the instant contract, this does not constitute a cause for reducing the construction cost, the above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a defect in the Plaintiff’s construction content, the Plaintiff did not go through the sunlighting and ventilation windows, and there was a defect in the interior, lighting, etc. installed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 19 million in total, including KRW 5 million in the installation cost of the sunlighting, KRW 10 million in the ventilation, KRW 3 million in the opening cost of the ventilation, and KRW 19 million in the installation cost of the lighting.

B) The Defendant offsets the Defendant’s damage claim and the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost. 2) The Plaintiff’s judgment is against the Defendant.