1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

1. The scope of the judgment at the court of first instance claimed the payment of the construction cost of this case against the defendant in the principal lawsuit at the court of first instance, and the defendant claimed the payment of liquidated damages as a counterclaim. The court of first instance accepted both the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim claim.

In this regard, the defendant only appealed against the claim part of the principal lawsuit, which is subject to the judgment of this court is limited to the claim part of the principal lawsuit.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning a counterclaim claim), and thus, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning a counterclaim claim) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance that is added or written, and the 11th sentence “It is difficult to see as a major process.”

In this regard, the plaintiff completed the repair of the defects in the portion pointed out by the defendant upon conditional completion approval on November 27, 2013, and accordingly, the plaintiff rejected the application for the completion approval that the defendant applied for the completion approval of civil engineering works to the Sung-gun, but the Sung-gun could cause the completion approval as well as civil engineering works and building works to be completed.

The grounds for appeal Nos. 5 and 6 were submitted, and as to the fact-finding of this Court, the Sung-gun also filed an application for completion permission with Sung-gun on the ground that the development activities of the instant A Tourist Site was completed on August 2014 or around September 9, 2014, but the Sung-gun did not receive an application for completion permission on the ground that the construction was not completed after the site creation.

"A reply is made".

As seen earlier, the instant construction work is a A Tourist Site Development Project, and the Defendant also applies for the completion of construction to the Sung-gun at the time of filing an application.