The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that Defendant B paid all the construction cost to Defendant B, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) in relation to the instant construction work on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below, the above measures of the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate for the amount equivalent to the above amount on the ground that the Defendant Company incurred damages equivalent to KRW 134,284,00 in removing the Plaintiff’s retaining wall and installing a new retaining wall, such as the drawing, on the ground that the Plaintiff installed the retaining wall according to the instant subcontract of this case, and failed to perform its duties under the contract, and accordingly, the Defendant Company removed the retaining wall of the Plaintiff’s installing the retaining wall.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below, the above measures by the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Company, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, limits the amount of damages that the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant Company to 80% of the amount acknowledged.