1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid next to that of the judgment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts which are used or added by the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 8,638,00 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant on September 19, 2018, when the case was pending in the court of first instance.” In addition, the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 8,638,00 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant.

The 5,640,00 "5,640,00" in the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment shall be "5,640,600", and the 7th sentence "9,700" shall be applied "7,900".

"Total 537,460,000 won" in Chapter 11 of the first instance judgment shall be added to "Total 546,098,000 won (= KRW 537,460,000)."

Under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court determined that the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 2,362,00 for a fine for negligence” was “the Defendant paid KRW 1,042,00 (one time of an administrative fine of KRW 521,00) twice by excessively exposing two times.”

"10,178,00 won (=550,000,000-537,460,000-1,320,000-2,362,00 won)" in Part 5 of the first instance judgment shall be 1,540,00 won (=50,000,000-546,000-546,098,000 won-1,320,000-1,320,000 won).

The 5th judgment of the first instance court shall consist of not more than 10 parts below as follows:

The judgment on the portion of the claim for additional transport volume is examined as to whether the Defendant, while entering into the instant soil transport contract, caused damage to the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff the quantity of earth and sand. The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the quantity of soil and sand to be transported by 63,565 cubic meters are as seen earlier in the instant soil transport contract, and according to the evidence No. 2, according to the Defendant’s entry of the evidence No. 2, the part of the soil and sand construction among the expanded construction of the F church from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant soil and construction contract”), and the said contract “the instant soil and construction contract.”