1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion from the Defendant that “the instant construction work” is the metal and glass construction work (from April 2012 to June 2012; hereinafter “instant construction work”).

(1) The Plaintiff was obligated to pay 23,842,200 won to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2012 to September 24, 2012 (i.e., KRW 123,850,00,000, totaling KRW 236,850,000, which was added to the original construction work (i.e., metal construction work 213,50,000, KRW 23,500). However, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay 200,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 60,000, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 2000, KRW 5,45,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 205, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 208,2000.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost of the instant construction contract is KRW 142,00,000 in total (i.e., metal construction work of KRW 120,000,000 in glass construction work of KRW 22,000,000), and the additional construction work cannot be recognized.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and the facts that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not prepared separately between the parties, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the parties. The evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including the provisional number) submitted by the Plaintiff was merely a document prepared by the Plaintiff, or there is no signature, etc. to the effect that the Defendant recognizes the same content. The evidence No. 5 argues that the Defendant submitted the Plaintiff’s additional construction content, and it cannot be known whether all the goods indicated in the evidence No. 7 (including the provisional number) were offered to the instant construction work. Thus, each of the above entries alone is the basic construction cost and the additional construction cost.