Of the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s succeeding intervenor A’s claim.

The grounds of appeal are with merit: Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) not timely filed.

The supplemental appellate brief is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs.

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the grounds of appeal on the construction cost received, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) paid the Plaintiff KRW 280 million on October 15, 2009 and KRW 100 million on March 6, 2010, respectively, and that the Defendant’s payment should be deducted from the construction cost of this case sought by the Plaintiff. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal on delay of construction in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected Plaintiff A’s assertion that there exists a justifiable reason for the delay of the completion of construction of the construction of this case, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff A cannot claim construction cost increased due to design change or additional construction work, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

B. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.