1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim on the principal lawsuit changed from the trial, is as follows:

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

It is identical to the judgment of the first instance court, except for the modification as stated in paragraph (2) and the addition of the judgment in the next trial, and it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The amendment of the first instance court’s second sentence in paragraph 4(c) of the fourth d. of the first instance judgment: (i) adding “(However, construction cost shall be KRW 604,00,00,00, including value-added tax)”; (ii) removing paragraph d. of the sixth d; (iii) placing “ma” and “F” respectively in “Ra” and “ma”; and (iv) “502,00,000,00” in the third 13 parallels as “50,318,200”; (iv) the “10 evidence” in the first 15 parallels as “10,30”; and (v) adding “15,16 parallels” as “6, 170, 170, 1700 won” and “60, 170, 470, 67, 67, 67, 67, 47,” and each of them included “the number indicated” (hereinafter).

3) No. 7 of the first instance court's decision was "I had no", and the defendant added not only such performance impossibility but also the fact of its recognition to Q Q, who was responsible for and agreed on February 19, 2018 to entrust Q, who is another business entity, with his remaining construction work (Evidence A No. 18), to Q, who was in a state of non-performance, shall be deemed to have been in a state of non-performance. The plaintiff in the first instance court's decision No. 19 added "in accordance with Article 36 (2) of the second contract of this case" to "for the plaintiff in the same part of the second instance court's decision No. 19. 4). The second instance court's decision No. 8 of the first instance court is below.