The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the assertion of a delayed deduction for the change of the design period of mountainous district restoration works, and the assertion of a delayed deduction due to the absence of a field manager, the lower court determined, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, that the construction period of the instant construction works included in the period of construction of mountainous district, and the number of delayed days the Plaintiff is responsible for paying liquidated damages, shall be 85 days. In so doing, from May 2013, the lower court considered the circumstance that the Defendant’s on-site manager was not in excess

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the above determination by the court below contains the plaintiff's assertion that since the change of mountainous district restoration work was delayed due to the defendant's mistake, it should be excluded from the number of delayed days, and the construction work in this case was delayed due to the defendant's absence of a field manager, and the purport of rejecting all the plaintiff's assertion that it should be excluded from the number of delayed days. Therefore, there is no error

B. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the amount calculated by deducting the construction amount equivalent to the base value of the Plaintiff’s performance from the contract amount at the time of calculating the liquidated damages shall be the base value for liquidated damages.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the standard amount of calculation of liquidated damages.

(c).