Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the construction business, etc. with the trade name “D” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the telecommunications construction business, etc. in the name of “F” in Kimhae-si, and the actual duties of “D” have been performed by G, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, and “F” by H, who is the husband of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” without distinguishing between the Plaintiff and G, and without distinguishing the Defendant and H).

The Defendant constructed a new neighborhood living facility with a total floor area of 528.0 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Jinhae-gu I, Jinhae-gu I, and left it to the Plaintiff among them.

C. Around December 2017, the instant building was completed.

Meanwhile, the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on September 28, 2017, KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million on October 2, 2017, and KRW 10 million on November 7, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 11 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On September 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost was KRW 40 million with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and that the construction work was to be carried out during the construction of the instant building.

However, since the defendant paid only KRW 20 million to the plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 22 million (including value-added tax) and damages for delay.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Plaintiff alone among the new construction works of the instant building was the construction cost of KRW 40 million with respect to the unused and sculpture construction works performed by the Plaintiff, and furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that the construction cost of the instant building was completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Meanwhile, through consultation with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed on the cost of materials and labor costs of KRW 27 million, and KRW 29.7 million, in total, as construction cost, and KRW 2.7 million. The Plaintiff on October 31, 2017.