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

1. Determination as to a claim for the cost of construction works additional to F Changho Lake

A. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from the Defendant on June 20, 2013, the Changwon-si and two parcels of multi-family housing (F) were awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 220 million and completed the construction work; and (b) the construction work was additionally conducted in an amount equivalent to KRW 51,380,450 (including value-added tax) in the process of the said Fho Lake; and (c) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 51,380,450 for the said additional construction cost.

B. The following circumstances are prepared in the name of the Plaintiff and Songjin Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tjin Comprehensive Construction”), and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 210 million (including KRW 40 million paid in bills), including the down payment amount of 40 million, in most of the construction costs (including KRW 40 million paid in bills), in the name of the Plaintiff and Songjin Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd.). The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the construction cost of the Fjin Comprehensive Construction Project as a person supplied with the construction of Songjin Comprehensive Construction Project, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the construction cost of the Fjin Comprehensive Construction Project (the Plaintiff is a person supplied with the construction of Songjin Comprehensive Construction Project, including the number thereof; hereinafter the same shall apply) in light of the overall purport of each statement and pleading as follows. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s request for the issuance of the Fjin Comprehensive Construction Project.

C. According to the conclusion of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim for the additional construction cost under the premise that the F Changho Additional construction was awarded a contract by the Defendant is without merit without further consideration.

2. Claim for the payment of the I Costs.