1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supervise the construction site in order to newly construct a multi-family house on the ground of Yongcheon-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) and on March 3, 2015.

B. The Defendant’s KRW 40 million on March 27, 2015, and the same year to the Plaintiff.

4. 27.25 million won, per year.

4. The total amount of KRW 80 million was remitted as construction cost under the pretext of 28.15 million.

C. While the Plaintiff was carrying out the instant construction project, the Defendant filed an objection to the need for construction costs in excess of the originally anticipated amount, and the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction project around June 2015.

Since then, the Defendant had followed the instant construction and completed the remainder of construction directly, and completed registration of initial ownership on September 17, 2015.

E. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 89 million to the Plaintiff on the pretext of the settlement of the construction cost that the Plaintiff spent in advance.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 4, testimony of the witness D of the first instance court, the result of the defendant's personal examination of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant construction contract with the Defendant with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay the construction cost necessary for the instant construction work in advance, and then be paid KRW 30 million, separately from the Defendant. Since the construction work was completed and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on September 17, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

B. Although the Plaintiff agreed to complete the instant construction work with a total of KRW 240 million, including the Plaintiff’s profit, the Plaintiff unilaterally claimed additional construction cost without prior consultation with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s termination of the instant construction contract and the amount of KRW 89 million as requested by the Plaintiff.