1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,298,00 and its payment from November 14, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a subcontract with respect to tin works (hereinafter “instant tin works”) among brick C Co., Ltd. and New C (hereinafter “instant construction”) by setting the contract amount of KRW 183,210,000 (excluding value-added tax) at the construction cost and the construction period from November 25, 201 to December 31, 201.

B. During the construction of the instant stone, the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost, and accordingly, the Plaintiff suspended the instant stone construction around the end of December 201.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, the owner of the instant stone construction project, had been consulted with the Plaintiff three to four months after the date of the discontinuance of the instant stone construction project, and the Plaintiff removed the part of the instant stone construction project that had already been conducted, and completed the construction site at the instant construction site.

[Reasons for Recognition - Facts without dispute, entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 7, testimony of witness D in the trial, results of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s questioning, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the expenses actually incurred in the instant tin work and collected them at the construction site of this case. Since the plaintiff's actual expenses incurred in the instant tin work are KRW 15,298,000, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the expenses actually incurred in the instant tin work, the defendant is obligated to pay 15,298,000 won and damages for delay.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, witness D's testimony, and the result of the plaintiff's representative director's examination, the defendant accepted the plaintiff in order to continue the construction of this case after discontinuance of construction, or concluded a new contract for tin construction with the plaintiff. However, since the plaintiff had been implementing the construction of this case, the plaintiff could have claimed the right of retention at the construction site of this case. When 3 and 4 months have elapsed after discontinuance of construction of this case, the plaintiff and the plaintiff were bound to withdraw from the construction site of this case, and the defendant shall suspend the construction of this case to the plaintiff.