1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 36,058,978 as well as on November 2013.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 6 to 7 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, which reads “B was appointed as a manager” as “B. C&C construction was conducted on March 14, 2017 by the above court (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and read “A&C construction” as “A&C construction” or “the Plaintiff, a manager of E&C construction lawsuit of E&C construction,” which is described in Chapters 14 to 21, 5, 5, 14, 19, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 14, 14, 19, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 14, and 19.”

On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, “A evidence No. 46, 47 of the Plaintiff’s assertion contrary thereto” is cited as “A evidence No. 46, 47 of the judgment of the first instance court,” in consideration of the review opinion (Evidence No. 30 of the Evidence No. 46, 47, and 51 of the supervision group that the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is that the changed internal design cost of the B elevator is within the scope of the existing design cost of the elevator in the instant contract.”

Part 10 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance court stated that "the appraiser of this case shall be deemed to have delayed air due to the demand of the defendant for the change of design, and Typ construction has been additionally implemented in addition to Typ construction." The appraiser of this case shall be deemed to have been forced from December 15, 2011 to October 201, which was the date of entering into the contract for the work under the original contract of this case, to be completed in accordance with the process under the contract of this case, which was the date of entering into the contract, so it was necessary for Typ construction only once at the same end of 2011. However, due to the reason such as the defendant's request for the change of design, etc., the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been extended to Cyp construction to February 2013 only once.