1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the construction cost and the cost of voluntary removal for the non-execution of waterproof construction works. The first instance court accepted the claim of the construction cost for the non-execution portion and dismissed the claim of the construction cost for the non-execution portion.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of construction cost for the non-execution of waterproof construction works.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization that consists of occupants for the management of the Geumcheon-gu common apartment in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the project for rooftop waterproof construction of the instant apartment at KRW 121,660,00 (including value-added tax) and entered into an additional construction contract (hereinafter “the instant additional construction contract”) with the period from August 1, 2013 to January 27, 2014 by setting the construction cost of KRW 28,187,360 (including value-added tax) on January 18, 2014, and the construction period from August 1, 2013 to January 27, 2014.

The settlement statement attached to the instant additional construction contract is set up by adding 9,249,830 won (including value-added tax) to the additional construction cost referred to in 106, 1402, 110 Dong 501.

C. The Defendant did not perform the rooftop waterproof Construction on the instant apartment Nos. 106, 1402, 110 Dong 501, and only performed the repair work on the part of the Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, Seogsan, and Jin-Confect, etc., and the said repair work requires KRW 3,949,000 (including value-added tax).

On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remaining construction cost of KRW 44,590,90.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties concerned did not execute the rooftop waterproof Construction Work No. 106, 1402, 110 Dong 501 among the construction details stipulated in the instant Additional Construction Contract.