1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. As a result of examining the defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted at the court of first instance and the trial, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined. The reasoning for this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. At the end of the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, “(the Defendant, the Defendant did not have a comprehensive authority to act for the Defendant at the time of preparing the Plaintiff and the Additional Construction Specifications, and the power of attorney as of February 26, 2016 was actually prepared after March 3, 2016, and the date of preparation was retroactive for convenience. However, although the testimony of the witness F of the trial witness of the trial court alone lacks to reverse the above facts of recognition, and there is no other counter-proof, the above legitimate power of attorney is recognized)” is added to the end of the fourth sentence.

B. The fourth parallels 10 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

“2. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the additional construction cost cannot be claimed to the Defendant unless it submits specific items concerning the additional construction and data, such as tax invoices that can objectively prove them, since the additional construction is not carried out and is actually included in the main construction.

However, as seen above, the testimony of the witness F of the party trial as shown in the above argument is not believed in light of the fact that F works as the witness of the party trial while working as the defendant's field director and consulted with the subcontractor about the settlement of accounts on behalf of the defendant, but it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's additional construction cost as 93 million won, each statement of Eul evidence 13 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

“”

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is reasonable.