1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) changing "G land" No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "D land"; (b) changing " July 17, 2012" to " July 11, 2012"; (c) "the amount of damages is scheduled" No. 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) "the amount of damages is not delayed due to any cause attributable to the plaintiff, and thus, (e) the defendant shall not be liable for default; and (e) the defendant shall return it or return it to the plaintiff, or delay the completion inspection in advance "the estimated amount of damages" of No. 715 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive"; and (e) unless there is any evidence to acknowledge that the delay of the completion inspection was not caused by the plaintiff's cause attributable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be additionally obligated to compensate the defendant for damages due to the agreement from May 24, 20014.".

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is obvious that “from September 6, 2014,” in the disposition of the first instance court, “from September 6, 2013,” is a clerical error from September 6, 2013, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.