1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. On October 1, 2012 through November 1, 2012, Plaintiff 1, Defendant: (a) calculated the amount of additional construction costs related to the instant Claims Nos. 1 and 2; and (b) in the case of KRW 49,703,00, the Defendant paid the amount up to November 20, 2012; and (c) in the case of the amount for the production of the Ppe, the amount of which has not been agreed until the date of consultation, the Defendant agreed to pay it up to about 20 tons after the review by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff continued to work on a volume of approximately 49,703,00 won in accordance with the instant Claims Nos. 49,70, 400, 130, 1300, 130, 130, 130, 130, 130, 130, 130, 140, 140, 20

(2) Around March 2013, 201, the Defendant settled the accounts of the instant contract and the additional construction works asserted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant contract”) around KRW 189,150,00 in total, including the construction cost of KRW 9.2 million (i.e., KRW 460,000 x 20 metric tons) under the instant contract. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the unpaid construction payment following the settlement of accounts.

B. According to the evidence No. 8 of the judgment No. 1, around October 2012 to November 11, 2012, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to the effect that “the additional work cost of KRW 49,703,00 claimed by the Plaintiff shall be settled up to November 20, 2012 after the Defendant’s review, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s work did not reach an agreement on the production cost of the sco 4 Utake, Baffle, and Indonesia, the amount of the Plaintiff’s work did not reach an agreement.”