1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim for the principal lawsuit as modified by this court, is modified as follows.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The Plaintiff sought the payment of KRW 1,006,164,940 for the total amount of the construction cost under an unpaid agreement and the total amount of the restoration work (additional Works) due to the collapse of amnesty, and damages for delay.

After that time, this court modified the first claim (amended by March 14, 2016), and sought payment of the amount of KRW 6,344,153 (the part concerning the unpaid contract price) of the first instance court’s claim, ② construction cost of KRW 45,192,90, ③ construction cost of KRW 845,839,192, ④ construction cost of restoration work due to the collapse of the surface, ④ construction cost of KRW 89,265,641,245, and delay damages.

In addition, the claim was finally amended to seek payment of KRW 1,173,934,174, and KRW 89,265,00,00, including the sum of KRW 1,263,19,174, and damages for delay due to the collapse of amnestys.

Therefore, the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is limited to the above ①, ② items.

B. Meanwhile, the counterclaim of this case consists of ① 1,821,237,00 won for liquidated damages (as part of the first instance trial), ② 362,736,00 won for warranty damages (as part of the first instance trial), ③ 2,345,450,664 won for total of KRW 161,47,664 for warranty damages (as part of the damages for delay in the first instance trial), ③ 162,7,64 for warranty damages (as part of the damages for delay in the first instance trial), ③ 2,345,450,664 won for warranty damages due to the discontinuance of construction, and the Plaintiff appealed the part against the Plaintiff and the part against the Defendant of the item (as part of the damages against the Defendant of the item).

Therefore, the judgment of this court among the counterclaim claims of this case is limited to the above ①, ②.

2. Case summary

A. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except for the reasons for appeal, since it is identical to the description from 2, 18 to 7, 2, and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.