1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a new construction work of KRW 553,00,000 for the construction work cost of KRW 2,5, and 9 (hereinafter referred to as “this construction work”) from the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff was paid the full amount of the construction cost by the Defendant is not disputed between the parties or that it was paid by the Defendant in full by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in the evidence No. 1.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the additional construction on the Am apartment mechanical room Nos. 2, 11, and 12 on the Am apartment mechanical room (hereinafter "Additional construction") and actually carried out the additional construction, the defendant should be paid for the additional construction cost of KRW 9,900,000 and damages for delay.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the agreement on the additional construction is not prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a resolution of the council of occupants' representatives regarding the contract on the additional construction; (c) the tax invoice (Evidence A2) and quotation (Evidence A5) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence of the additional construction; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is no indication of the Defendant’s intention, such as the Defendant’s official seal; and (iii) the additional construction is ordered by B, the head of the Defendant’s management office team (see, e.g., preparatory brief 1, 2, 26 March 2015 of the Plaintiff), and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff has the authority to conclude the additional construction contract on behalf of the Defendant (or the testimony that the additional construction has not been requested to the Plaintiff at the trial of the Party) and that the additional construction has not been actually implemented by the Plaintiff.