2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B are as follows: "A No. 2" No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A. 20 of the complaint" shall be deemed as "the original copy of the payment order," and "the original copy of the complaint" of No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be rejected as "the original copy of the payment order," and each statement of No. 15 through No. 20 of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in addition to the addition of the judgment below, as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment

[Additional Decision] The plaintiff asserts to the effect that with respect to an industrial accident accident occurred at the construction site of this case by the plaintiff and the defendant J, which occurred at the construction site of this case, the plaintiff would have expected to receive 80 million won as an employee accident compensation from the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and on this premise, the plaintiff would distribute 40 million won as an employee accident compensation to the defendant Eul. Unlike the expected amount, the plaintiff actually failed to receive 49 million won as an employee accident compensation from the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and thus, the plaintiff could have distributed 245 million won (49 million won x 1.2 million won x 49 million won) equivalent to 1/2. Thus, it should be deducted from the balance of the progress payment to the effect that it should be deducted from 49 million won.

However, the plaintiff's assertion is the same.