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 reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance has accepted the judgment as follows. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In Part 3, the phrase “(s)” is added to the phrase “(s) in Part 20, and there is no evidence that the Defendant has received a value-added tax pursuant to the second construction.”

In the second construction cost of this case at the time of the second contract of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant stated KRW 34,468,073 in the construction cost of this case at the time of the second contract of this case to the extent that it is unfair to calculate the construction cost of each part by simply comparing only the unit part and the construction area of the other part among the second construction work of this case. However, the above quotation is written voluntarily after the conclusion of the second contract of this case by the plaintiff, and as seen above, the part constructed by ELGGS agent is not only the front part and double part, but also the front part and half part, and even in accordance with the above estimate itself, it cannot be accepted since the plaintiff added the construction cost of this case to the second construction cost of this case.

On December 3, 2015, “On the fourth day of the first instance trial on December 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) led to the Plaintiff to make a statement in the briefs as of December 1, 2015 from the fourth day of the first instance trial on December 3, 2015; and (b) led to the confession that the Plaintiff performed the said works as additional works; (c) thereafter, on the first day of the first instance trial on November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff suspended the said works.