1.The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims that have been reduced and added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

In this case.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “3th 2012.” The 12th 12th 12th 201 “construction price,” and “each entry” in the 5th 4th 5th 4th 5th 201 is the same as the entry in paragraph 1 in the grounds of the judgment of the first 1st 201, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the alteration of “each entry and video” into “each entry and video”.

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the contract payment, etc. of this case are as follows: “The 5th 16th Ga judgment of the first instance court is deleted; “28,427,355” of the 6th 14th 14th 28,427,355; “2010Da34043 decided October 11, 2012” of the 7th 2 and 3th 7th 2012 are as follows: “The 2010Da34043, 34050 decided October 11, 2012,” in addition to the changes into “the 2010Da34043, 34050 decided October 11, 2012”, the 6th 14th 2th 14th 2th 20 and 34050 of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance.”

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part, such as set-off against the Defendant’s damage claim, is as follows: “2010Da26745” in the first instance judgment “2010Da26745, 26752”; “10,000,000” in the third 8th 13th 8th 201 and “50,000 won” in the first 50,000 around October 31, 201; “94Da47474” in the 21st 194Da4781, 4781, 14, 145, 14, 65, 600” in the first 13th 8th 8th 8th 201 and “30,000,000 won” in the 21st 20th 195th 198.

Since “B” must be deducted from the Defendant’s amount of damages, the Defendant’s assertion that KRW 14,861,880 out of the amount of damages 25,743,600 as above cannot be recognized.

The term "ro, 12, 13 others" means the plaintiff.