1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money that orders additional payment is revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for access roads and ancillary civil works from the Defendant on November 19, 2008 to the 297,000,000 won (including value-added tax) among the new construction works of the Da Welfare Center affiliated with the Defendant on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction works”), including Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, etc., the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 31, 2009, when the Plaintiff performed the instant construction works, may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) the contract for the instant construction works was terminated implicitly on December 31, 2009; (b) the progress of the instant construction works is about 53% as of December 31, 209; or (c) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or the overall purport of the pleadings and the results of appraisal by the appraiser F on the grounds of entry in

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 157,410,000 (=297,000,000 x 53%), and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.

As of December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work of this case was completed in excess of 53% and at least 70% as of December 31, 2009, and sought a payment for the corresponding construction cost. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s appraisal result of Gap’s evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 28-1 and the appraisal result of the current trial appraiser G is in excess of the amount recognized above.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense of deposit is a defense that he deposited part of the construction price of the instant case, and the Defendant deposited KRW 33,749,000 out of the construction price of the instant case with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit on January 7, 2011. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

B. The defendant of offset defense is the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost of this case due to the defects in the construction of this case.