2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) A due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the indirect cost claim, the 3rd amendment of the instant secondary contract, the 1,2, and 3rd amendment of the instant third contract, and the 1,3, and 4th amendment of the instant fourth contract, and the construction period of the instant construction was extended to 598 days in total. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the total amount of indirect cost of KRW 328,418,00, as shown in the attached Table 3, during the said extension period.

B) However, on November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the increase in the construction cost due to the extension of the construction period of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for reimbursement of indirect costs of KRW 328,418,00 due to the extension of the construction period of this case, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the cost of installing and removing the passage gambling facilities in accordance with the design plan of the first contract of this case, but removed it with the Defendant’s change of circumstances and removal order. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for reimbursement of the construction cost of KRW 101,090,000 due to the construction and removal of the passage lodging facilities and damages for delay.

3) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the miscellaneous removal costs against the Defendant, as at the Defendant’s request, after removing miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneouss on the formation of the central separation zone and India among the roads in this case. Accordingly, the Intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant for the miscellaneous removal costs of KRW 4,748,00 and delayed payment damages therefor. (B) The Intervenor organized a joint supply and demand organization with the Plaintiff and jointly received the instant construction from the Defendant, and accordingly, the construction cost was paid individually by the Defendant according to the ratio of shares in the Plaintiff’s claim amount (=15,816,075).