The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The extension portion: With respect to this part of the additional construction cost, the said appraiser included an appraisal sheet in the Ethical and fireproof construction cost, but it is not possible to verify whether the said appraiser actually affixed a seal because the steel pole was buried in concrete, and then buried in concrete after the installation of the steel frame, and there is no reason to affix a seal, and the witness B’s testimony is difficult to believe, and otherwise there is no evidence to prove that the steel scrap and fireproof paint were built on the steel material in this part, and therefore, 24,154,598 won, excluding related expenses, should be recognized as the additional construction cost in this part.

According to the previous 10,408,508,729,729,725,62,622, 865, 8860,228 123,961, 378,586, 632, 2042, 781,050 2378,105 26,159,154 revised 8,926,5609, 5609, 4751, 190,385 852,751354,764, 767, 950, 7682, 760, 865, 865, 860, 865, 860, 1268, 298, 1984, 1975, 194, 194, 1975, 194, etc. of the Plaintiff’s 3000.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that Deerator room is not a fireproof zone, but a fireproof map has not been actually performed, so the cost of fireproof drawing should not be reflected in the calculation of the additional cost of construction. However, according to the result of the above appraisal supplementary commission, it is recognized that Deerator room columns and beams have been sealed as a fireproof paint, and accordingly, it can be confirmed that the remainder has been sealed as a fireproof paint. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Roof;