1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts V through XI of the decision of the court of first instance that are dismissed or added are as follows:

1) The defendant suspended the construction of this case by demanding payment of more than 50% of the construction cost even though the time for intermediate payment stipulated in the contract of this case has not yet arrived. The defendant's failure to perform the construction of this case sustained KRW 447,607,00, which is an additional payment for the completion of the non-execution part due to the defendant's failure to perform the construction of this case = KRW 951,73,000 [i.e., the appraised amount of the construction cost for the non-execution part of this case = KRW 1,189,39,398,000 (i.e., the appraised amount of the total construction cost - KRW 237,65,000) - The appraised amount of the construction cost for the non-execution portion - KRW 504,126,000,000 (=630,000,000 - 125,874,000).

Even if the amount of damages should be limited for the construction cost actually paid by the Plaintiff, the construction cost should not be added due to the change of the Plaintiff’s design, and the Defendant’s continuous obstruction of construction works cannot seek the construction company at the time, and thus, the construction directly operated by the Plaintiff was inevitable.

Therefore, 166,029,00 won actually paid by the Plaintiff as a result of changing the design is within the scope of the Defendant’s liability for damages, as it is naturally paid due to the suspension and interference of the Defendant’s work. The Defendant’s failure to perform domestic work, the entire construction cost actually paid by the Plaintiff as a result of changing the design, cannot

(b)if any;