1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

(2).

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. Around December 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for construction works (hereinafter “construction works in this case”) other than the portion of civil engineering works (including value-added tax) among the construction works that newly built a factory building (the scope of the instant construction works, which had been changed to a neighborhood living facility) on the ground of the Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) up to KRW 100 million for the construction cost (including value-added tax) and February 15, 2015 for the construction period; and (c) received the delivery of the instant building after the Plaintiff completed the construction works in this case and obtained the approval for use on February 26, 2015; or (d) did not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1 and all pleadings.

The Plaintiff received KRW 70 million from the Defendant as the construction cost for the instant building project.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that, after completion of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff sought additional construction costs of KRW 31,451,666 and damages for delay from the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction work to extend a dunes office in the building completed by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant additional construction work”).

(1) There is no clear dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff completed the establishment of a dunes office in the instant building.

However, if the construction of a multi-story office constitutes an additional construction, it is difficult to believe that some of the testimonys of the witnessO of this court, which seems consistent with this, is in the light of the relationship between the witness and the plaintiff, the attitude of the statement, and the non-competence of the statement.

The statements of Gap 3 and some testimonys of this court P are recognized.