1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is that “ August 10, 2015” as “ August 11, 2015,” set forth in Chapter 2, Chapter 15, of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the cost of removing earth and sand and dumping it to the first half of the construction work of this case, and there is no other profit in addition to the construction work of this case. On the other hand, while the second half of the construction work of this case, rocks were removed from the construction work of this case and sold them to the aggregate yard, etc., thereby gaining additional profits in addition to the construction work of this case. As such

Therefore, if the Plaintiff calculates the profits and losses from the construction site of this case to the time of the removal of earth and sand, there is an unreasonable reason that does not include the profits from the phase of the removal of stone. The construction work up to the phase of the removal of stone, which was conducted for the benefits of the construction work during the phase of the removal of stone, was planned from the beginning. As such, a certain amount should be added to the construction cost for the truck replacement allowance for soil and sand during the phase of the removal of stone during the instant construction work, and an unreasonable adjustment should be made so that the construction profit can be appropriately calculated by deducting a certain amount from the construction cost for the transport of stone truck during the phase of the removal of stone (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s method of adjusting the construction cost asserted”).

In this way, 130,421,865 won is the transportation cost incurred until the plaintiff's partnership withdrawal.

B. The method of adjusting the construction price of the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an independent assertion that is not based on contractual or legal principles.

Even if the plaintiff's above assertion is prepared or the principle of good faith.