B. 1) In addition to the purport of the argument as to Gap's testimony under the contract of this case and Eul's testimony, "200-300 meters in depth" stated in the contract of this case seems to have been intended to secure "150 tons or more in daily pumping volume". However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff completed construction works more than 150 tons in daily and issued a certificate of confirmation of completion under the name of H, and the defendants are obligated to pay the agreed construction cost to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the defendants' assertion on reduction of the construction cost is not acceptable on the ground that the defendants' assertion on reduction of the construction cost is not based on the ground. The unpaid construction cost, excluding 25 million won in which the plaintiff was paid, is 41 million won [=60 million won in daily pumping volume plus value added value-added tax - 25 million won in daily pumping volume - 260 million won in marine water impact assessment, and it is clear that the defendants were 260 million won in marine water impact assessment tax bill of this case.

However, the above facts alone agreed to pay KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff as expenses for impact assessment of groundwater, separate from the construction price under the instant contract.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants entered into such an agreement with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

(c)the unpaid construction cost of KRW 41 million, depending on its inheritance shares.