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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both corporations running soil construction business and reinforced concrete construction business. The Defendant, around 2015, is a corporation that was awarded a contract by C Co., Ltd. for the construction of access roads to the D Industrial Complex at racing-si, which was contracted by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) Around February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff. Around February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate calculated by 28,620,000 won for the construction cost of the instant construction project to the Defendant, and completed the instant construction project from May 8, 2015 to May 19, 2015. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of the instant construction project to KRW 25,560,00,000, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 9,560,000,000 among them. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said Plaintiff unpaid construction cost. (2) The Defendant asserted that the instant construction cost of the construction cost of the instant construction project was submitted from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff claimed that the instant construction cost of the instant construction cost of KRW 25,560,000,00,000 (including value-added tax).

B. According to the overall purport of testimony and pleading by the witness E of the trial, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the construction cost of the instant construction project as KRW 25,560,00 (excluding value-added tax), the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project on May 19, 2015, and the Defendant paid KRW 16,00,000, out of the construction cost of the instant construction project on August 5, 2015.

According to the above facts, the defendant's assertion that it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation from May 20, 2015, which is the following day after the plaintiff completed the construction in this case, as to the construction price of KRW 9,560,00 (i.e., construction price of KRW 25,560,000) to the plaintiff (i.e., construction price of KRW 16,00,000) and the following day after the plaintiff completed the construction in this case.