1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as follows: “The instant construction contract” in Part II, Part II, and Part XIII (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) in Part II, Part II, and Part XIII (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); “the instant contract” in Part XIII (hereinafter “instant contract”) is deemed as “the instant primary contract”; and the “the instant construction contract” in Part XIII (13) is deemed as “the instant primary contract”; and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (section 10 through No. 3, No. 14). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim determined the construction cost of the instant construction as KRW 350 million (excluding value-added tax). However, on January 5, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to increase the construction cost of KRW 450 million (excluding value-added tax). On the other hand, an additional construction amounting to KRW 82,186,80,00, including the floor and papering work cost and papering work cost of KRW 4,83,60,00 (including the floor and papering work cost of KRW 4,833,60,00 and the rooftop tower channel private person, and KRW 82,186,80,000 (including the above increased construction cost and additional construction cost of KRW 450,000) from the total amount of the construction cost and additional construction cost of KRW 582,020,40,000).

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 42,912,00 (i.e., KRW 350 million x 1.1 value added tax, barring any special circumstance. - The Defendant is obligated to pay the said payment of the construction cost of KRW 342,08,000) and damages for delay.

B. On January 5, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the construction cost as KRW 450 million (excluding value-added tax) between the Defendant and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant asserts that an additional payment for the construction cost should be made accordingly. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is concerned.

The written evidence No. 1 is all the pleadings.