1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except that the reasoning for this part of this Court is that “G and the future of the defendant” in Section 3 of the judgment of the first instance is applied to “G and the future of the plaintiff”

2. Determination as to the claim for construction cost

A. 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into the instant subcontract and set the subcontract amount at 75% of the amount calculated by subtracting the expenses related to the same contract details from the construction cost under the instant original contract. The construction cost under the instant original contract is KRW 2,710,628,880, and Seoul Qro and Defendant A, etc. finally settled the construction cost under the instant original contract at KRW 2,608,602,562. Meanwhile, the fact that the sum of the relevant expenses arising from the instant original contract constitutes 152,512,631 is recognized as above. Accordingly, the amount of the subcontract amount under the instant original contract is 1,842,067,448 won [2,608,602,562 won-12,512,631 won] x0.75 won, less than the amount of the construction cost under the instant original contract.

[See the defendants' assertion that "1,843,00,000 won" as stated in the subcontract of this case is consistent with the amount calculated by subtracting related expenses from the total construction expenses stated in the contents of the original contract of this case, so long as the subcontract of this case is consistent with the amount (hereinafter referred to as "amount calculated") calculated by 75% of the total construction expenses stated in the subcontract of this case in accordance with Gap's evidence 6, Eul's evidence 58 and the purport of the whole pleadings, as well as the calculation of the subcontract amount based on the contents of the original contract of this case. Thus, the defendants' assertion that the subcontract amount should be calculated based on the cost statement attached to the subcontract of this case is not acceptable.

2) In addition, in addition to the construction cost set forth above, both the original contract and the subcontract agreement of this case are owned by the Seoul M&C, as material cost.