1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 55,019,875 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2015.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part of additional deletion or replacement as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Part] In the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “A evidence 18,” and “A witness of the court of first instance” shall be added respectively to “each entry of the evidence No. 3” in the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The "court of the first instance" shall be added to the "Seoul Metropolitan City" in front of the second judgment of the first instance.

Part III of the judgment of the first instance court shall add the following details to the third letter:

F. At the time of the said subcontract, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with a warranty bond equivalent to 5% of the contract price in cash or as a warranty bond equivalent to the same amount of the contract price, after the completion inspection, until the payment of the contract price is made. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a warranty insurance policy (Evidence A 18) with the purchase price of KRW 65,030,000 (=1,300,60,000 + 5%) from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on December 8, 2015, and issued it to the Defendant on December 9, 2015.

The "court of the first instance" shall be added to "Seoul Metropolitan City" in attached Form 8 of the decision of the first instance.

The "retirement" in paragraph 21 of the decision of the first instance shall be added next to the "Retirement" of the decision of the first instance.

Part 5 of the Decision of the first instance shall be amended by inserting the following information:

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the completion of the instant construction is delayed due to the delay in the incidental civil works that the Defendant should execute. However, it is difficult to deem that the completion of the instant construction is delayed due to the grounds, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was the cause for the delay, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation is with merit.