1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and it is identical to the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the reasons for this part as follows. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the intervenor joining the plaintiff" as "the intervenor joining the plaintiff in the first instance."

B. Of the first instance judgment, the former Construction Technology Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) was amended into the former Construction Technology Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the “rate of driving route” of the seventh and tenth instances of the judgment shall be calculated by applying the “rate of driving route” to “rate of driving route.”

2. Determination as to the establishment of the obligation to pay the agreed performance fee

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the lawsuit related to the plaintiff (A) and the defendant's execution of the new technology of this case was recognized in the lawsuit above, so the defendant may no longer dispute as to whether the new technology of this case was implemented by the participating effect.

B) Even if the participation does not have the effect, the technical scope of the new technology of this case should be determined by the “Contents and scope of the new technology” publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation through the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the technical scope of the new technology of this case should be determined by the “Contents and scope of the new technology”. Accordingly, the technical scope of the new technology of this case should be determined by the following: (i) central glass is a fluoring structure; and (ii) using the Spain report for the blocking of the new technology of this case, which mutually connects the divided air layer; (iii) heavy glass in the 2nd parallel method

The Defendant supplied 3 heavy glass, which is the product to which the instant new technology was applied, from the Plaintiff, and assembled a window manufactured by combining the press products manufactured in accordance with the said new technology with the above 3 heavy glass at the construction site.