1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where it is used or deleted as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Rule] 6-3 of the court of first instance

B. (1) Determinations on the reduction of construction cost in KRW 32,879,00 shall be made as follows:

Although the Defendant originally agreed on the construction area of 100 square meters, the total floor area on the architectural design map reduced by 8.54 square meters (91.46 square meters) was reduced by 302.35 square meters (91.46 square meters), D asserts that the instant construction contract on the part of 32,879,000 won (i.e., the reduced construction area x 8.54 square meters x 3,850,000 won (i.e., the reduced construction area x 32,879,000 won) should be revoked or the construction amount corresponding to that portion should be reduced from the construction price of this case by deceiving the Defendant that the Defendant would easily gather the design drawings.

As seen earlier, the Defendant and D calculated the construction cost by applying approximately KRW 3,850,00 per square meter per square meter to approximately 100 square meters of the anticipated construction area at the time of the instant construction contract. According to the evidence No. 4, the total floor area of the instant building is 302.35 square meters per square meter per square meter per square meter per square meter, but it is found as follows: (a) the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier are acknowledged by the fact of recognition; (b) whether the content of the anticipated construction area at the time of calculating the construction cost of this case based on the total floor area on the registry of the instant building is unclear as asserted by the Plaintiff; and (c) the construction design drawing of the instant building was made by the Defendant.