2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding “the construction contract of this case” (hereinafter “the construction contract of this case”) to “the construction contract of this case” following the “construction contract of this case” of Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

The reasoning of this part of the claim by the court is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the claim is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In full view of the following circumstances, prior to the existence of an agreement on the payment of additional construction costs in the market, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff reasonable construction costs at the time of the instant meeting, as to each construction project listed in the separate sheet, which is not included in the instant construction contract, or exceeds the agreed quantity, and the Plaintiff’s construction work is acknowledged as having been executed, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) evidence No. 5, No. 6-2; (b) evidence No. 1, No. 6-2; and (c) witness F’s testimony; and (d) the result of and the purport

It is reasonable to view it.

At the meeting of this case, the Plaintiff demanded 350,000,000 won as additional construction cost of 35 items (see evidence No. 5) to the Defendant and C.

As a result of the meeting, regardless of the attached list 1 or 5, each corporation, regardless of C, was excluded from the subject of consultation between the third parties on the ground that it was an additional construction due to the defendant's design or construction direction errors, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to organize the construction cost amount of KRW 170 million in separate consultation with the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

At the time, the Defendant stated that “The error in calculating the quantity among the additional construction works claimed by the Plaintiff and the part in the contract between C and the Defendant cannot be recognized.”

A witness F of the trial who was present at the meeting of this case as the team leader of the C at the time of the meeting of this case is subject to each quotation (No. 4-1-8) presented by the Plaintiff at the time of the meeting of this case.