1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2012, the Defendant ordered “201 Heat Pipelines Corporation” from the Korea District Heating Corporation to “201,” jointly with the new plant company, and subsequently subcontracted the part of the “heating pipes installation” to the Defendant on May 21, 2012 as KRW 126.5 million from the date of the commencement of the construction period and KRW 40 days from the date of the commencement of the construction period (Provided, That until June 25, 2012).

hereinafter referred to as "the instant construction contract"

B) According to the instant construction contract, in the event of an extension of the time limit upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff shall pay a delay compensation equivalent to 3/1000 of the contract amount to the Defendant for the day of delay (Article 5 subparag. 2). The Plaintiff shall perform the construction work in accordance with the design and any other drawings prescribed under the instant construction contract, and shall not perform any construction work contrary to the Plaintiff’s independent design change or other process schedule (Article 9 subparag. 1). C. The Plaintiff completed all the subcontracted construction work on July 31, 2012, after the expiration of 36 days from the original construction period’s expiration date. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff shall complete the subcontracted construction work on July 31, 2012.]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Plaintiff agreed to perform excavation works in a 7m depth of the advance exit and arrival exit under the construction contract of this case (hereinafter “the excavation works”); (b) according to the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff performed the construction works in a depth of 1.8m deep; (c) calculated the construction cost on the premise that the excavated part under the construction contract of this case consists of earth and sand; (d) the construction cost was increased due to the discovery of rocks during the actual construction; and (c) the construction work performed by extending the length of the advance exit to 6m without the scheduled construction cost, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay additional construction cost to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) Evidence No. 2 of the Additional Construction Work related to excavation work (B)