1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing of control apparatus at the trade name of "C", and the defendant is engaged in the textile processing business with the trade name of "D."

B. On July 2015, the Defendant awarded to E (F companies) a contract for the relocation and structural improvement work (hereinafter “the instant relocation work”) of a mid- and long-term content (i.e., a machine built by adjusting the length and the raw body in a certain width) with the cost of KRW 180 million.

E around July 10, 2015, around July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff awarded a subcontract for electrical construction during the instant relocation construction.

C. The Defendant decided to set up the instant construction work within the D factory because it is not a place to move down the curriculum. By November 30, 2016, E decided to complete the instant construction work.

On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant on December 14, 2016, stating that the Plaintiff had an electrical construction of KRW 5,024,80 in total, and KRW 2,384,800 in total, up to December 9, 2016, including the installation, etc. of a server on the master book and the master book (i.e., a machine removing several parts by amanle or compressed roller, hereinafter referred to as “net book”). The Plaintiff demanded the payment of the price.

E. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant promoted the completion of the instant relocation construction and sent a postal item requiring repair of defects to E.

The defendant has accepted such demand and accepted part of the reconstruction and repair to other companies.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including, if any, the number; hereinafter the same shall apply); Gap witness E's testimony; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant directly requested the Plaintiff for electrical construction separate from E, and accordingly, the Plaintiff rendered an electrical construction equivalent to KRW 5,024,80,00 in total up to December 9, 2016, and KRW 2,384,800 in total up to December 13, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 7,409,60 in total (= KRW 5,024,800).