1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant (appointed party) shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the court of first instance.

The term “Defendant C” means “Defendant C” (as a designated party, “Defendant B” as “B”.

2. The "E" of the 18th 2nd 18th e and the "E" of the 3rd e and the "E" of the 3rd e are different from the "W E".

3. The following shall be added to the 6th 6th 6th e.g.:

The network E died on October 10, 2016 and succeeded to the Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointor P, Q and R network E, respectively.

3. On November 22, 2011, the subcontract was modified as follows: B and the Plaintiff changed the subcontract to increase the original construction cost of KRW 380,000,000 to KRW 460,000 (hereinafter referred to as “amended subcontract”).

. The 5th page “(4)” was added to the following:

G. Meanwhile, as Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap8099, B filed a lawsuit against the project owner seeking the payment of the construction cost under the instant contract.

(hereinafter “Related Case”). The court of first instance in the related case judged that the owner is liable to pay B the unpaid construction cost and delay damages on the basis of the appraisal result that B made an appraisal for calculating the existing and existing rate at the time of suspending the construction work in this case and calculated the unpaid rate of 91.22%, and that the owner is liable to pay B the unpaid construction cost and delay damages.

However, the above court issued a seizure and collection order against the claim for construction cost based on the contract of this case by designating B as the debtor and the owner as the third debtor, and filed a lawsuit for performance by B in excess of the amount of the above unpaid construction cost and delay damages.