1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “The Defendant’s additional payment of KRW 50,00,000 to the care cost of KRW 50,000 shall be paid under the condition that the construction work shall be completed within the term of the originally agreed construction work, but the Plaintiff shall not be obliged to pay it since the painting construction work has not been completed within the term of the construction work.” Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited under

3. Determination

A. The reasons for this part concerning the claim for the return of construction cost are as follows in the fifth 9th eth eth eth eth 9 of the judgment of the first instance. The fact that a certain juristic act constitutes a so-called conditional juristic act which takes effect upon the fulfillment of the conditions is also the one which prevents the legal effect arising from such juristic act from causing the legal effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da20832, Sept. 28, 1993). Even if all evidence submitted by the plaintiff are examined, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground to view that an additional construction cost payment agreement takes effect on the condition that the construction work takes effect within the originally agreed construction period is completed, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no obligation to pay the pro rata construction cost is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of "no reason exists."

B. The grounds for this part of this Court concerning the existence of the Plaintiff’s loss related to the substitution of substitute manpower are stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 11 to No. 6).