However, the plaintiff does not specify the specific amount of the construction cost and the price of the materials which have been completed in the main claim, and specified the construction cost which has been completed in the conjunctive claim as KRW 5,91,363, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost of KRW 55,91,363 and KRW 100,708,637 (=156,70,000 - 55,91,363) is judged to be combined.

Therefore, this paper examines the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims regardless of the order of the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claims by dividing them into the claim for construction cost.

B. The plaintiff's claim amount of the second household fire door, which recognized the cost of construction of balcony outside of one household (6,240,000 won) that recognized the claim amount of construction work, is excessive, and the plaintiff's claim amount is recognized only as 7,040,000 won (110,000 won *64) that recognized the cost of construction of the plaintiff's claim for the construction of the third roof inspection bridge (1,610,400 won) that recognized the cost of construction of the plaintiff's claim (980,000 won), was not completed. The part of the inspection room within 5 households which recognized the cost of construction of the above 2,184,00 won (42,00 won * 52EA) that had been submitted by the plaintiff and the witness's testimony within the scope of 15,000 won as to the above construction work of the plaintiff's 5,91,400 won, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the construction work was less than 4000 won.48.