The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the following facts, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, the construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) related to the new construction of apartment houses No. 2 attached to the lower judgment (hereinafter “new construction”) on April 24, 2008, and the construction contract alteration contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) on July 23, 2008, respectively, concluded a contract for construction work (a division from the instant contract, and the contract amount was changed from KRW 49,363,240,00 to KRW 47,768,240,000, and the contract amount was changed from KRW 47,768,240,000; hereinafter “instant modified contract”). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s additional construction payment was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s unilateral declaration of intent to terminate the construction contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unilateral discontinuance of construction work by the Defendant’s assistant.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to view that the Plaintiff paid the additional construction cost to the relevant subcontractor, as the Plaintiff paid all additional construction cost due to the construction of the instant garment floor, etc. to the subcontractor who performed the instant garment construction.

The judgment of the court below.