In the fourth instance of the first instance judgment of the part added, “61,710,100 won” in the 7th instance judgment below added “(i) M 3,696,287,100 won for disposal of O 4,660,000 won for disposal of 8,660,000 won for disposal of h 3,50,000 won for acquisition of materials for 9,900,60,000 won for spons 6,600,000 won for spons 1,485,000 won for container-care expenses for 1,20,000 won for n vehicle damage compensation expenses for 310,200,000 won for N vehicle damage compensation expenses for 11,282,000 won for K-related benefits, etc. 10,790,000 won for K-related benefits, etc.”

In two pages of the judgment of the first instance court, "D" of one kind shall be added to "D Co., Ltd." and "D Co., Ltd.".

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. In light of all circumstances, including the language and text of the instant agreement, the process of conclusion of the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff and Defendant D’s interest with respect to the instant construction project, which can be known by the fact of the recognition of the content of the agreement under the instant agreement, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and Defendant D agreed to the instant construction project, which was abandoned on or around December 2017 by the Plaintiff, pursuant to the instant agreement, to have been executed by Defendant D, and that Defendant D agreed to pay the construction cost by settling accounts in the way of deducting the costs reasonably paid from the construction cost after the completion of the construction work.

B. Defendant D’s assertion of Defendant D as to the confession during the trial was acknowledged as the Plaintiff’s construction amounting to KRW 863,45,513 in the preparatory document dated October 5, 2018, and accordingly, Defendant D asserted that the confession during the trial was constituted.

In the above preparatory documents, the plaintiff's remaining construction amount stated in the statement of settlement submitted by the plaintiff to the court is 860,585.