The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

A limited partnership company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) was awarded a contract with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for civil works and appurtenant works among F construction works around February 2013.

On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from B as the price for construction of 12,344,200,000 won (including value-added tax) and the period of construction from February 18, 2013 to May 15, 2013 (this changed to June 15, 2013).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”). B received the “on-site explanation statement” from C at the time of the instant subcontract, and delivered it to the Plaintiff. The construction cost was calculated by adding the amount of direct construction cost, safety management cost, and general management cost, calculated by applying the unit price for each process to the quantity of soil and sand, yellow cancer, and yellow cancer as stated in the official document.

B. B, following the commencement of the instant construction, around March 23, 2013, issued to the Plaintiff a design drawing indicating the actual quantity of earth and sand, gropical cancer, and gropical cancer.

Unlike the official specifications, the volume stated in the design drawings has been reduced from 540,000 cubic meters to 224,294 cubic meters from 540,000 cubic meters to 32,208 cubic meters from 1,000 cubic meters to 32,200 cubic meters, and the annual cancer has increased from 2,860,000 cubic meters to 4,145,60 cubic meters.

The plaintiff requested B to increase the construction price on the ground that the actual volume of the annual cancer with high contract price increases, but B rejected the request.

B, on June 10, 2013, notified the Plaintiff that the instant subcontract was terminated as of June 12, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff unilaterally ceased construction work on June 7, 2013.

After October 22, 2013, B directly performed the construction and completed the construction of this case from C.