2. The appeal costs.

However, as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that additional pipeline works were conducted merely by analyzing documents without directly checking the status of pipelines.

[Supplementary Part 2] The plaintiff's assertion that this part of the plaintiff's assertion was delayed and the construction period was extended due to such delay, and the occurrence of indirect costs during the extended construction period, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's assertion occurred during the extended construction period.

[Supplementary Part 3] A) The plaintiff's assertion related to the impossibility of automatic control by the mutual assistance machine (1) is asserted to the purport that there is no defect since the plaintiff's assertion is ① there is no problem with the wind pressure and wind of the mutual assistance machine, ② the special agreement specifications (Evidence A 22) presented by the defendant that "the automatic control of the mutual assistance machine is constructed so that it can be removed from the rooftop machine room?" It is sufficient to control the automatic control of the mutual assistance machine by the PC, ③ the test report of the mutual assistance machine test (Evidence A 23) was submitted to the defendant, and there is no defect. However, as seen earlier, this court judged that there is no problem with the wind pressure and wind of the mutual assistance machine (the mutual assistance machine installed by the plaintiff).

(2) The above special specifications of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a phrase “official automatic control”, and the specifications presented by the Defendant (as referred to in No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2, a separate PC for monitoring and operation must be installed, and the PC automatically controlled.

Part 17 "," and the test report that the defendant received is premised on the automatic control function.