1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff KRW 13,782,736 and this shall apply.

(b)a survey is conducted on the outside of the second floor that the outside toilet and the front room are being constructed, such as the completion drawings, but the authorization drawings do not include the above construction;

F) In the case of an additional construction No. 4, unlike the completion drawing, the height of a rooftop rail was investigated as a result of the on-site survey to be built at a height of about 500 meters in total at a height of 400 meters with a 100-meter radius for the construction of stone. This is to be constructed at a height of 100 meters higher than 300 meters in height of a rooftop concrete rail marked on the authorization drawing and the completion drawing. In the case of an additional construction No. 5, it is investigated as a result of the on-site survey that the thickness of concrete walls was built at a height of 200 meters in height, and this is to be constructed at a height of 20-meter more than 180 meters indicated on the authorization drawing and the completion drawing.

H) In the case of an additional construction No. 6, as a result of the on-site investigation, it is found that stacks have been constructed with two lines of concrete beams (200*800) in order to install tubes at the entrance of the second floor, which is executed by adding one line to one line on the authorization and permission drawing and the completion drawing. (i) In the case of an additional construction work No. 7, it appears that the installation of a rain gauge, etc. on that part would naturally be accompanied by the installation of a rain gauge, etc. on that part, as the additional installation of the second floor toilets and the front room was installed on that part.

(j) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as to the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s construction cost incurred from the Plaintiff’s additional construction work was KRW 14,162,736, as shown in the separate sheet. 3) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that there was no additional construction work upon the Defendant’s request during the instant construction work process, and that the Plaintiff was merely a construction work based on the modified drawing. The Defendant’s claim from the first instance court to December 16, 2016, is from the authorizing drawings.