1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: “the plaintiff” in the first instance judgment No. 4; “the plaintiff” in the second instance judgment No. 6; “the construction cost” in the second instance No. 11; “the difference from “construction cost”; “the construction cost” in the second instance No. 9; “the construction contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant” in the second instance, respectively; and “the construction contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant” in the second instance, and “the construction contract of this case” in the second instance is added to the argument that the plaintiffs stressed or added at the trial.

The defendant's summary of the plaintiffs' assertion of additional determination should be calculated based on Gap evidence 7, 8, 11, and 12's cutting and banking level, but it was calculated based on Gap evidence 4-1, 2's cutting and banking level.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the description of evidence No. 2 and the fact-finding results and the purport of the entire pleadings of the first instance court for the first instance court for the appraiser E, it is difficult to believe that cutting and filling up of evidence No. 9-12, etc. listed in the evidence No. 9-12, etc., and no other evidence exists to deem that the appraisal result of the appraiser E in the

On a different premise, the plaintiffs' above assertion is rejected.

The instant construction project was a construction project that cuts mountainous districts (sloping areas) and forms the ground (spawn) for each lot of land, so it is general that the cut-off volume exceeds the cut-off volume.

Nevertheless, the evidence No. 9-2 stated that the 12-meters of 16,304 cubic meters (16,304 cubic meters) is more than ten times the cut (1,418 cubic meters) and there is no content about the bringing-in of earth and sand.

The certificate of content sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant on May 21, 2014 states that the construction of this case was about 60%, and the aforementioned rate of height enhancement corresponds to the base rate calculated on the basis of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 4-2.

In light of the scale of the instant construction project, the level of banking and cutting of earth Gap.