1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for addition under the following: (b) the Defendants’ new arguments and, in particular, emphasized or re-written arguments made by the court of first instance; and (c) this is

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ additional construction costs set-off should be set-off against the amount claimed by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 23,274,00 for additional construction costs of KRW 74,423,50 for additional construction costs of KRW 23,274,00 for additional construction costs of KRW 74,423,50 for additional construction costs of KRW 23,274,00 for additional construction costs of KRW 1).

The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants had been engaged in additional construction works related to the First and Second Works in the instant case on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 9 through 11, and 13, as stated in the Plaintiff’s request, is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ assertion. There is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants either consulted with the Plaintiff in advance or agreed to pay additional construction costs.

Rather, according to the testimony of the Z witness of the trial court, the content of the construction claimed by the Defendants in relation to the Z is merely a partial revision of the existing design in light of the field circumstances. It is difficult to view that the new construction without the content of the existing design has been implemented separately. According to the fact-finding results on the Z witness of the trial court, the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, in relation to the 2nd construction, has reduced the construction amount by more than the existing contract between the Dasung Industrial Co., Ltd. and the contractor.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' defense cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is concluded.