3) The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff, unlike the design drawing of the instant building, was an additional construction work for the construction of a third party in the dwelling room. On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that the instant building did not have a living room outside the dwelling room, and that the instant construction contract was to be executed as a third party, and that the said construction is not an additional construction work.

B) According to the findings of the fact-finding on the I architect's office of this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) in the design drawings of the building of this case, the "ROM, living room, main room, and studs" of the building of this case was designed to close down to a remote area; (b) part of the part designed in a remote area at the time of approval for use is changed to another day; and (c) in Article 14 of the Special Conditions of the Construction Contract of this case, the "OOM, toilet, main room (3000), and main room (200*400)" was constructed in another day (200. However, according to Article 6 (g) of the Construction Contract of this case, it can be acknowledged that Article 14 of the above special condition of the construction contract of this case excluded from the contents of the contract of this case. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's additional construction work of this case was not constructed in the construction contract of this case, and it is reasonable for the defendants to pay additional construction cost to the defendants' 400 days additional construction cost.