1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance has sufficient grounds for admitting the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues).

The reasons to be stated by this court are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the issues which are being examined and mainly disputed in the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (attached Form 4).

2. In the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance, in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the transfer of a body to Defendant W" in the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the transfer of a body to Defendant W."

In the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court, the third class of the Nemos box "the fine shall be borne by Defendant W" shall be "the fine shall be borne by Defendant B (the defendant and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.)."

Part 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, from Part 6 to Part 16, and Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the existence of a claim for construction price under the construction contract of this case against W" shall be as follows:

B. The defendant's claim for the construction payment claim based on the contract agreement of the construction project in this case against the LAW Co., Ltd. 1) The summary of the defendant's claim is the Seoul Central District Court 2008Guj10091 (hereinafter "the payment order in this case").

As such, as determined through B, the Defendant has a claim for construction cost of KRW 3.5 billion against W in total. In particular, approximately KRW 2.1 billion is the amount corresponding to the part for which the Defendant directly performed the remaining construction work from August 2007 when the instant building was completed to January 2008 after the termination of the subcontract agreement with the U.S. In addition, the Defendant is the amount corresponding to the part for which the Defendant directly performed the remaining construction work from August 2007. Therefore, the instant lien exists against the Defendant as the preserved right. (2) The instant payment order itself has a claim for the construction cost of KRW 3.