1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including, if any, a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and in the testimony (except for the portion not trusted) by the witness A of the first instance trial, as a whole, of the entire pleadings:

The plaintiff is a company that operates air conditioners installation and service business, and the defendant is a company that operates air conditioners wholesale and retail business, machinery and equipment construction business, etc.

B. On August 2009, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff on the installation of air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant construction”) and on the maintenance and repair of air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). On November 30, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the construction of air conditioners and air conditioners (hereinafter “instant construction”). On November 30, 2009, the construction amount was KRW 2,846,280,80 (including value-added tax) and the delivery period was from August 10, 2009 to October 10, 201.

C. While the Plaintiff’s additional construction project was being carried out under the instant subcontract, at the Defendant’s request following the change of design for the development of modern industry, the additional construction project equivalent to KRW 25,532,91 (including value-added tax) was carried out.

The Plaintiff, including the discontinuance of the instant construction work, continued the construction work from August 16, 201, and suspended the construction work from around August 16, 201. Until that time, the construction cost that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 2,654,110,850.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff requested additional construction at the Defendant’s request, and the construction cost therefrom was 25,532,91 as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25,532,91 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Drick reconstruction cost claim 1.