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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to contract the instant construction to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the construction of garbage bags and the removal of structures, etc. in Gunsan-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

Construction amount: A construction period of KRW 90 million (including value-added taxes): From October 7, 2013 to December 6, 2013 (it may be extended by up to time): Compensation for delay within one month after the completion of construction: Three-one-one thousands of the down payment each day from the date following the scheduled completion date of construction to the date of completion of construction:

B. Since then, the construction period of the instant construction was extended by December 16, 2013. Until the said date, the construction was not completed and discussions were held as to whether the construction will continue during the winter season between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff pointed out that the instant construction was delayed due to the official document sent to the Defendant on December 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant official document”), and requested the completion of all other processes except damping construction, by concerns over the occurrence of defects due to the said period, and the completion of the said construction after the said period is completed.

C. Around January 9, 2014, the Defendant completed other processes except for damping construction. On the Plaintiff’s request, the part of the damping construction began on March 21, 2014 and completed the portrait around April 2014.

The Defendant submitted the completion date to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2014, and the Plaintiff applied for a pre-use inspection to the Gunsan Mayor on April 16, 2014 and received notification of the completion of the pre-use inspection on May 16, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost of this case to the Defendant even after the completion of the usage inspection, and the Defendant received a large amount of demand from the Plaintiff during the construction process of this case, and thus, the original agreed construction cost against the Plaintiff.