1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Incorporated Agricultural Company C are dismissed.

2...

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 except for the modification of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o Part 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, Part 7, "Defendant G," and Part 8, "B," and the first construction contract for the construction work "B," respectively.

o No. 7 of the first instance court judgment No. 10, “In accordance with the above-mentioned agreement, the Plaintiff appears to have reached an agreement with the Defendant Company that the Plaintiff would no longer claim for the payment for the construction work that was undertaken prior to the conclusion of the second construction contract with the Defendant Company, and it does not seem that the Plaintiff reserved the Defendant Company to claim for the payment for the construction work that was undertaken prior to the conclusion of the contract.”

o The following details shall be added to not more than 8 in the table 8 below the ruling of the first instance court:

【The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a party to the first construction contract, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the following grounds: (i) in light of the fact-finding results in the first construction contract, and the description in the evidence No. 17 (Recording) in the trial of the Party E and the description in the evidence No. 13 and No. 14, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion; (ii) it is unclear whether the Plaintiff submitted the evidence No. 11 through No. 13 was actually spent at the construction site of the instant case; (iii) it is unclear whether the Plaintiff was actually spent at the construction site of the instant case; (iii) there is no confirmation of the person responsible for the work log; and (iv) there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was responsible for material costs and personnel expenses to the subcontractor from Dec. 2, 2015; and even if not, the validity of the other agreement cannot be denied.”

2. If so, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are asserted.