Defendant Counterclaim Co., Ltd.

Although the court of the first instance accepted the claim for the construction cost as to the Defendant-Counterclaim Co., Ltd. (Counterclaim Plaintiff), it did not render a judgment on the order and the reasons for the conjunctive Defendant A&M in violation of Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to this, the Defendant Lessee Co., Ltd. filed an appeal. The subjective preliminary consolidation lawsuit is a relationship between the claim against the primary Defendant and the conjunctive Defendant’s claim against the primary Defendant, and as long as the Plaintiff’s claim against the primary Defendant was accepted in the first instance trial, the claim against the primary Defendant is naturally dismissed, and thus, the judgment was omitted. However, in accordance with the legal principle that the primary claim and the conjunctive claim cannot be tried separately, the primary Defendant Lessee Co., Ltd.’s appeal against the primary Defendant Counterclaim Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the scope of the judgment of this court was determined together with this judgment.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for any addition or modification below, as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

[Supplementary or modified parts] The following judgments shall be added on the third resolution theory of the 11th decision of the court of first instance.

In addition, it is necessary to add the quantity, etc. in the course of performing the plant installation works of this case, including the rest of the plant installation works of this case, among the main works of this case.