The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. In addition to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court’s citing the judgment of the first instance, it seems reasonable to recognize and determine the facts of the first instance even after examining the evidence additionally submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the allegations emphasized or added by the Plaintiff in this court, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this Court cited it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of

Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, "This Court" in Section 18 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be "Sagu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch".

In the first instance judgment, the first instance court’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment 20, second instance judgment’s second instance judgment 7, second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment, and second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment

2. The Plaintiff, based on Article 14-2(1) of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), should adjust the contract amount in the event of increase or decrease in construction volume. As such, the Defendant’s reduction of the contract amount corresponding to the construction details that the Defendant did not work should be made. The Defendant completed the construction work on July 15, 2016, at least after the lapse of the agreed construction period on November 15, 2015, which is the date of the completion of the agreed construction period. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delayed prize pursuant to Article 23 of the instant contract, and the amount should be calculated at least KRW 84,650,50 (the contract amount 348,356,000 x 1/1,000 x 243 days). Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the instant claim should be paid at least the amount of the instant contract.

However, as seen earlier, the certificate of work has become adequate on the premise that the settlement has been completed after reflecting all the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as a failure to perform construction works.

On the other hand, according to the evidence No. 24, Article 14-2 (5) of the contract of this case, where construction volume increases or decreases according to Gap's instruction, Gap and Eul (Defendant) shall be prior to the construction work.