1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “No. 22, 2016,” each of the “No. 3, No. 7, and No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance,” respectively; “No. 4, 2016,” and “only the evidence submitted by the Defendant” in No. 2-2 and No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4, shall be read as “only the evidence submitted by the Defendant,” and the Defendant’s argument added in the trial as to this case is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that each of the above amounts should be deducted from the amount of indemnity claimed by the plaintiff, since the defendant shall be paid KRW 4,717,500 for additional construction cost for packing construction, and KRW 7,616,00 for labor cost for field workers.

Although the Defendant asserts that the difference between the private materials of boundary stone in the first instance trial, the additional construction cost for the protection of trees, and the additional construction cost deduction for the night-time work cost are different from the amount, this part of the claim is without merit, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, and therefore, it does not state it separately.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the additional construction cost alleged by the Defendant only with the descriptions of Nos. 3, 5, and 5-1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s agreement on the burden of the Defendant on the additional work is null and void due to an unfair subcontracting in violation of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, but the Defendant asserts that “an attempt to pass the additional work, remuneration work, etc. on the Defendant was in violation of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and thus, the Plaintiff committed an unfair subcontracting act,” and thus, is determined as above.

A.