Part of the judgment below's claim for construction cost, part of the claim for additional construction cost, official implements and expendable money.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to regard the instant mechanical pipeline construction contract as a unit price contract in which the unit price and the relevant construction cost are determined based on the expected quantity at the time of the contract, and, in the event of an increase or decrease in the actual construction volume after the completion of construction, the construction cost is adjusted according to the unit price determined in advance.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of legal acts.

B. (1) citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, i.e., the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) may easily seek unit price from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) to receive a subcontract for the instant boiler construction from the Defendant on March 11, 2008. The two contracts are related to some of the instant boiler construction works contracted by the Defendant (B; hereinafter “B”) and are similar in the form of the contract and the type and contents of the attached documents. Unlike the instant mechanical pipeline construction contract, unlike the instant mechanical pipeline construction contract, the unit price (man-hour/ton) was not written in the contract specifications, but only in the case ofman-hour’s division into the total quantity calculated according to the approximate quantity, and the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to the Plaintiff on March 11, 2008, which is the Plaintiff’s head of the 500,000 U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff.