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

On October 22, 2016, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of the judgment by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

◎ 제1심판결 제5면 제5행부터 제13행 피고의 주장 부분을 다음과 같이 고친다.

For the following reasons, KRW 85,125,02, the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff, stated in the statement of grounds for appeal that the Defendant’s claim for construction cost against the Plaintiff was KRW 85,125,02, but the Defendant claimed KRW 85,410,230 as a counterclaim, and did not change the amount claimed as a counterclaim.

(i) Since 275,515,042-42-42,60,00 won-120,000,000 won-12,989,770 won-14,800,250 won, the defendant claims against the plaintiff for the payment of the remaining amount and damages for delay.

(1) It was agreed that the total construction cost of the instant construction project should be calculated at 50% of the increased amount, and there was no agreement to be calculated at the amount of 86.7459% after applying again 61.77% from 50% as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the total construction amount of the instant construction project is calculated as KRW 275,515,042, including value-added tax, = (basic construction amount of KRW 240,00,000 x 1.1) + (the Defendant’s additional construction amount of KRW 20,936,440 x 50 x 1.1 x 1.5 ,000 for convenience 10,000 for additional construction amount of KRW 20,936,440 x 10% x 1.1 x 11.5,000 for convenience. However, in the trial, the Defendant claimed to the effect that the total construction amount of KRW 11,51

20,936,440 won x 50% x 1.1)

◎제1심판결문 제6면 제19~21행의 문장을 다음과 같이 고친다.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the construction cost of this case is total KRW 275,515,042, including value-added tax, = (basic construction cost 240,00,000 x 1.1) + (20,936,440 x 50% x 1.1). The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

◎ 제1심판결문 제7면 5행의 갑 제21호증의 1, 2 다음에 갑 제27호증을 추가한다.

◎...