1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the payment order is ordered in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a written estimate that sets the construction amount of KRW 219,503,111 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to remodeling construction works on the land of 1320 square meters in Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and presented it to the Defendant.

The written estimate includes temporary works, removal works, electrical construction works, installation works, light capacity works, metal works, wood works, painting works, painting works, painting works, swimming works, and other works as the type of the instant construction works.

On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff sent e-mail to the Defendant’s husband D with the following content, as the Defendant puts on color for the above estimate amount.

It seems that there seems to be variables in the contents of the revised drawings, but it would be possible to carry out the construction work in excess of 160,000,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand) if it is separate from the project for moving household of fire-fighting equipment and the project for removing basic construction works (including partial wave and fence), light capacity construction works (including the building), light capacity construction works (including the toilet, square), and electrical construction works (the equipment), water supply works (the equipment), painting construction works (the equipment), and painting construction works (the equipment) works (the equipment).

The preparation has not been slicked, and once again, it is slicked.

The above e-mail sent by the Plaintiff is accompanied only by the corrected drawings, and the corrected specifications are not separately attached.

On June 18, 2016, the Plaintiff, in dialogue with the Defendant on June 18, 2016, stated to the effect that it would be adequate for the Defendant to pay construction cost to the extent of KRW 160,000,00.

On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff left the construction site of this case at the request of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings is asserted by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole pleadings, and construction costs incurred until the plaintiff's assertion was completed at the construction site of this case are based on the total amount of KRW 316,873