1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (former Hoho Construction Industry Co., Ltd.) to pay the construction cost of the electricity and electric light installation works (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract construction works”) among the construction works on the land of the land of the Haan-gun, Haan-gun and four parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract works”) within KRW 25,30,000 (including value-added tax), November 26, 2013; the date of commencement; February 28, 2014; and the date of completion of the completion of the construction works; and the contract to pay the completion price within seven days from the end of each month following the progress of the construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for construction works”).

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 11,00,000,000 out of the subcontract price of this case on the date of the contract as the down payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B, the owner of the building, performed the construction of the electric light and spawd of the above Ba, and the Plaintiff performed only the electrical construction. Since the subcontracted construction of this case was completed, the Defendant should pay KRW 14,300,000 to the Plaintiff the amount of the subcontract construction work unpaid.

3. We examine whether the Plaintiff completed the instant subcontracted project in accordance with the terms of the contract, and examine whether the testimony by the witness B, consistent with the Plaintiff’s above assertion, is difficult to believe, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff completed the instant subcontracted project solely on the basis of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant construction contract states as “electric and electric class installation works”, and if the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for electrical construction only, it appears that the instant construction contract did not state “electric class installation works” in the instant construction contract. The materials cost, etc. for the instant subcontracted construction are borne by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff is only electrical construction and the Defendant is out of the subcontracted construction project.