1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance [including the corresponding part of the “1. Basic Facts” (including the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes) of the suspension of the second page]. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, in Part 7 of the decision of the first instance court, "in accordance with Article 29 (2) of the Special Conditions" shall be applied to "in accordance with Article 29 (1) 2 of the Special Conditions."

2. The plaintiff's argument in this part is the same as the part of "the plaintiff's argument" in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court's explanation in this part is the same as the part of "the plaintiff's argument" in Article 7 of the court of first instance.

3. Determination

A. The reasoning why the court should explain this part of the claim for indirect construction cost is identical to that of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the claim for indirect construction cost at the bottom of the seventh part). Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Regarding the criteria for calculating the additional cost of indirect construction arising from the extension of each construction period of this case (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015) due to the extension of each construction period of this case, the disputed part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is as follows: ① the number of persons subject to the calculation of the indirect labor cost, ② whether the safety manager’s labor cost is recognized separately from the occupational health and safety management expenses, ③ whether the number of persons subject to the calculation of the indirect labor cost, ④ whether the premium is excluded from the indirect labor cost for the number of persons subject to the calculation of the insurance premium, ④ whether the profit ratio is reflected in the calculation of the indirect construction cost, ⑤ whether the sewage-based company included the indirect construction cost, and the decision of this court on this issue is as follows.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the appraiser S’s appraisal on May 27, 2019, the extension of the construction period of each of the instant construction period was extended by 36 months (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015).