1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 47,490,121 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from February 14, 2014 to July 22, 2015 against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 363,000,000 for the construction work within and outside the Eel (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) as follows.

On October 22, 2012, Article 7 (Change of Design and Contract Price) (1) of the General Conditions of the Contract on January 6, 2013 (Change of Design and Contract Price) (1) If it is necessary to change design by the Defendant’s interpretation, the Defendant shall notify the Plaintiff in writing, and the Plaintiff shall perform construction work accordingly.

(2) Where it is necessary to alter the contract amount under the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff may file a written claim for an alteration with the defendant, but it shall not be recognized any alteration due to price fluctuation.

(3) If any change in the period and conditions of publication is unavoidable due to paragraph (1), the plaintiff shall submit to the defendant a written statement of change.

Article 12 (Liability for Defect Repairs) (1) The warranty period of defect repair of a construction project without compensation shall be one year from the date the defendant delivers the object of the construction project after the completion of the inspection.

(2) The object of construction works which are caused by defects of the construction works shall be the responsibility of the plaintiff, and be repaired by the defendant in accordance with the contract documents.

B. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff added a total of 33 million won to the outer right-side tin, film work, signboard addition work, and the entrance automatic 2 evaluation volume extension and manual construction work.

C. On January 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction including the foregoing additional construction, and delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

On July 29, 2013, the Defendant: ① the number of the rooftop shower rooms; ② the number of the automatically entrances of the rear door of the building; ③ the number of elevator leakage inside the elevator; ④ the number of women in the front door of the telecom building; ⑤ the less than the width of the parking lot tent; ⑥ the inferior of the one-story CCTV, 7 the number of the floor of the rooftop shower room; and 8th the rooftop floor.