In the judgment of the court below, Defendant Volcano Construction Co., Ltd., Defendant Symjin Construction Co., Ltd., and Defendant Syman Construction.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant Volcanc Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Volcanc Construction”), Defendant Saman Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Saman Construction”), Defendant Saman Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Saman Construction”), and Defendant Saman Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Saman Construction”).

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the main point of this part of the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the construction work contract, tax invoice, evidence No. 31, and the probative value of evidence No. 15, which are the disposal document, are presumed to have been established, on the basis of evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 3, which are merely a construction work statement prepared in preparation for settlement if the plaintiff could not complete the construction due to the reasons such as the construction work division, etc.

The above argument in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the judgment of the court below and the fact-finding based on it.

However, the recognition of facts and the evaluation of cooking evidence, which are the premise thereof, are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.

Examining the record, the lower court’s determination of evidence and fact-finding do not seem to have exceeded the bounds of reasonable free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the probative value of disposal documents and the authenticity of private documents, as alleged above.

The above argument in the grounds of appeal is not correct.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to damages for delay in advance on the Plaintiff’s construction of volcanic volcano, Defendant Ho-jin, and Defendant Sho case.