1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning the claim for payment of the basic facts and the remainder of construction works is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim for additional construction cost

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to extend the construction period due to the cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, such as delay in the generation of wastewater, Defendant’s request for further trial operation, and refusal to bring in the outside sludge, even though the construction was completed by December 31, 201, and thus, the Defendant should pay the additional expenses, such as site management expenses, paid by the Plaintiff from January 1, 2012 to January 17, 2013, which is the day following the expiration of the modified contract period pursuant to Articles 16 and 21 of the General Conditions of the instant contract, until January 17, 2013, 104,301,984 won (i.e., expenses incurred by the Plaintiff, 95,514,638 won x 1.092).

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the special terms of the instant contract can be adjusted according to the time the actual wastewater occurs. Since the construction period is extended due to the fact that the results of water quality testing on discharged water through mutual agreement and the trial operation of the instant facility fall short of the guaranteed water quality, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay additional construction cost to the Plaintiff.

C. As seen earlier, the date of completion of the instant contract was extended on December 31, 201 through the first revision (including two months of trial run) and the contract amount was not accompanied by the adjustment. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the video of No. 30-1 to No. 44, and the testimony of witness B of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff appears to have completed the installation of the instant facilities at the latest between April and May 2012 and the preparation for trial operation.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, and 2, the Corporation in this case shall conduct trial operation and guarantee water quality in addition to the design and construction of the defendant.