1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this case are as follows: evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 9-1, and Eul evidence No. 9-2, which are evidence additionally presented in the court of the first instance, even if they stand stand for the evidence No. 4, 5, and 6, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 9-2, the fact-finding in the court of the first instance is insufficient to either reverse the fact-finding in the court of the first instance or recognize the defendant's assertion, and the additional determination

2. The proviso of Article 2 of the instant Contract for Additional Determination, unlike the “cancellation by breach of contract, etc.,” as stipulated in Article 15 of the instant Contract for Additional Determination in order to relieve the Defendant’s term of validity of the instant contract from the maintenance of the contract under the contract for a project from the mar city, determines that if there exists a “reasonable cause”, it may be exceeded or modified by the instant contract for Additional Determination after prior notice, negotiation, and consultation with the other party.

However, there is no assertion by the defendant as to the termination of the contract of this case or the conclusion of the new contract by meeting the requirements prescribed in the proviso of Article 2 of the contract of this case (pre-announcement, negotiation, consultation, etc. with the other party).

3. The decision of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.