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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) add “14,” “16,” of Section 18 of the Second Instance of the Court of First Instance, to “16,” respectively;

(b) the “Witness” in Part 3, No. 18, 6, and 4, of the first instance judgment, shall be deemed to be the “Witness of the first instance trial” respectively.

(c) Forms 8 and 10 of the first instance court's 4 pages 8 of the first instance court's decision are as follows.

After that, according to the revised architectural design drawings, the author submitted to the defendant a written estimate for installation works that was revised on six occasions, including the end of April 2015, May 4, 2015; October 7, 2015; October 26, 2015; October 26, 2015; January 19, 2016; February 23, 2016;

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, part 18 through 19, part 6, part 17, "five times" shall be considered as "seven times".

(e) Forms 8 and 5 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

B) According to the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the overall purport of the statement in Gap's rashout cost, design work drawings, and quotation (1) and evidence Nos. 2 through 14, 16 through 20, 22 through 25, 33, 34, and 35, witness D, part of witness of the first instance trial, and E's testimony and pleading, the costs for preparing rashout cost, design work drawings, and quotation are costs incurred by the plaintiff in expectation of the establishment of the contract of this case and performance of the contract of this case, which are costs incurred by the plaintiff in the course of destroying the contract of this case. The following is added to the costs incurred by the plaintiff during the process of destroying the contract of this case. On the 8th instance judgment of the first instance court, the following is further added (the plaintiff at the end of March 19, 2015, reflecting the amended construction design drawings and the defendant's requirements for concluding the contract of this case and the performance of the project of this case for about 1 year.