The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the judgment on the argument added by the appellate court under paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of

(However, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and accepted only part of the conjunctive claim, and appealed only by the Defendant, the scope of quotation is limited to the conjunctive claim). According to the appraiser G’s appraisal result and the result of the appraiser G’s appraisal request and the appraiser G’s appraisal request, the main point is that the construction cost of the instant construction project executed by the Plaintiff is calculated as KRW 72,80,00 (72.8%) and the additional construction cost is calculated as KRW 44,856,00 ( separate value-added tax), and the balance calculated as KRW 100,000,000 already paid by the Defendant is calculated as KRW 29,421,60, since the remainder of the value-added tax is calculated as KRW 29,421,60, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the construction cost and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion added in the appellate trial

A. The Defendant asserts that even though the estimate of the instant construction contract states the sum of profit and general management expenses as 5% of the cost of construction, the appraiser of the first instance court calculated the cost of construction by adding the general management expenses equivalent to 6% of the cost of construction and the construction profit equivalent to 15% of the cost of construction to the cost of construction, and thus, the cost of construction is excessive.

According to the evidence No. 1 attached to the construction contract document of this case, the fact that the construction cost is included in the general management cost and the public cost of KRW 1,914,190 among the total cost of KRW 100,494,975 and the corporate profits are included in KRW 2,871,285 among the estimates attached to the construction contract of this case can be acknowledged.

However, the calculation of the cost of construction in the above quotation is only regarded as the coefficient adjustment of the item in order to meet the total cost of construction in KRW 100,000,000.

Only the above facts of recognition are the facts of this case to the defendant.