1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff as added at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the judgment by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable

Each "non-party company" of not more than Class 9 shall be dismissed as "B".

The payment shall be made under paragraph 3 below below inside the 4th box, and the payment shall be made within 25% (00 million won per annum).

Part 5 of the fifth page "the above sales contract" is deemed to be "the contract of this case", and the last place "4,700,000,000 won" shall be deemed to be "4,70,000,000 won".

The "Witness" in the 6th sentence shall be regarded as the "Witness of the first instance trial".

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the cost of KRW 103,970,000 for damages incurred by the Plaintiff in performing the instant contract (i.e., cost of KRW 14,700,000 for work site manager’s cost of KRW 14,870,000 for work completion of specific construction work cost of KRW 1,870,000). The Defendant is obligated to cooperate in the conclusion of the instant contract because the instant contract is a provisional contract. Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to comply with the negotiation procedure for the conclusion of the instant contract without any justifiable reason and did not cooperate in the procedure for the commencement of the contract. ② Even if the instant contract is the instant contract, the instant contract was rescinded due to reasons attributable to the Defendant’s breach of the duty to cooperate in the change of the contract price and refusal to implement the contract. ③ Even if the Defendant voluntarily terminated the instant contract, the Defendant was admitted to the entire intent of the Plaintiff’s pleading as a whole.