1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions of some of its contents. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

(a)Nos. 1 and 2 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

“E. The Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant factory on March 10, 2014.”

B. “A. The Plaintiff’s assertion” in the first instance court’s 6th to 13th sentence shall be followed as follows.

“A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 415,800,000 (=1,320,000,000) under the instant contract - the amount of KRW 904,200,000, and value-added tax separately).

2) The Plaintiff: (a) the construction of sanitary meters, cutting of cutting, marcing steelworks, U-marcing construction, and additional construction of natural rocks (hereinafter “the second additional construction”).

(3) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of this case = KRW 41,580,000 value-added tax of KRW 41,560,000 (value-added tax of KRW 52,560,000) and delay damages for the second construction cost of KRW 52,560,000 (value-added tax of KRW 52,560,000).

A person shall be appointed.

(c) “Determinations on the Second Additional Construction Costs” and “Determinations on the Defendant’s counterclaim of set-off shall be made in the following parts: (b) from 5th to 8th of the first instance judgment: (c) from 9th of the fifth to 11th of the said judgment:

1) The defendant does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff performed the second additional construction works.

However, the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s request for the first additional construction cost to the Defendant on January 13, 2014, based on the following facts: (i) the Plaintiff’s request on January 13, 2014 for the first additional construction cost.