1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the following amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

【추가하거나 고쳐 쓰는 부분】 ▣ 7쪽 15행 다음에 아래와 같이 추가한다.

“The Plaintiff asserts that the construction cost is merely that the Defendant voluntarily prepared, and that it was paid upon the 11th claim, including all the construction cost of the companies that directly ordered the work even at the time of the 11th claim. The Plaintiff concluded the instant modified contract, but only changed the construction period and did not reduce the construction cost, excluding the direct order portion. The final settlement of accounts prepared by the Defendant (No. 20) is written by the Defendant, and the same details as set forth in the above paragraph are written.

Although the above final settlement details are written by the defendant and agreed with the plaintiffs, they are seeking construction cost by reducing the defendant's construction cost in the creative construction work, etc., so it can be considered as the basis material in determining whether a direct order is issued.

In addition, the conclusion of the instant modified contract did not reduce the construction cost, and according to the Gap evidence No. 15, the defendant claimed the payment for the 11-time payment against the plaintiffs on February 29, 2016 and claimed that the construction cost was included in KRW 3,163,963,00, including the additional tax on the contract amount, and the portion claiming the direct order shall be included in the construction cost. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the above subcontractor received the order from the plaintiffs and received the payment from the plaintiffs, but it was merely a formal contract with the defendant, so the defendant claimed the payment for the completed portion as above.

The above subcontractor did not conclude the contract for modification with the remaining amount after deducting the amount of direct order from the contract for modification of this case.