1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the conclusion among the reasons for the entry with respect to this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The lower part of the first instance judgment, which this Court explains or in addition, is 370,000 won “360,000,000 won” under the second part of the second instance judgment.

The second part of the attached Table 2 of the first instance court judgment of December 31, 2012 "No. 31, 2012" shall be deemed "No. 31, 2013."

From the 5th judgment of the court of first instance to the 7th to the 6th 2th , it shall be followed as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant construction contract is a unit price contract subject to the settlement of volume, and the actual construction quantity in comparison with the remaining construction quantity as set by the Defendant’s remaining construction volume is not less than twice as to the unit price contract, and the Plaintiff performed construction works in addition to the construction volume as to each construction work.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 371,498,872 as additional construction cost in addition to the contract amount in excess of the quantity under the instant construction contract.

Unlike this, even if the instant construction contract is deemed to be a contract with no subsequent settlement of volume, the Plaintiff could not accurately grasp the remaining construction volume during the 7-day bid period at the time of conclusion of the contract. As such, the part concerning the above construction type is invalid in accordance with Article 22(5)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry since it is considerably unfair to transfer the Plaintiff’s liability to the items difficult to expect at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the modification of the design stipulated in the general conditions of the construction contract is required.

B. The Defendant’s duty to prohibit unfair special agreements under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), and this duty.