1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts are equivalent to the amount ordering additional payments.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the contract for the first and second works is rescinded;

A. The fact that the first contract for the cancellation of the first contract was implicitly rescinded by the conclusion of the second contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

B. 1) The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is whether the contract was rescinded or not. However, the Defendant refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s request to secure the above access road, and the Plaintiff cannot undergo a pre-use inspection on the instant building due to the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant construction, so the contract was lawfully rescinded upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract on February 28, 2014 under Article 32(1)3 of the General Conditions.

B) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant secured six meters wide access roads at the construction site of this case. Even if the access roads secured by the Defendant do not reach six meters, the Defendant already approved the project plan, which is the competent administrative agency, and the Defendant could supplement the width of the access roads, and thus, the Plaintiff could perform the Plaintiff’s construction. However, the Plaintiff did not initiate the instant construction project while discussing the issue of access roads, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the contract without starting the instant construction. The Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract was not effective, and the contract was lawfully rescinded by the Defendant’s declaration of intent of cancellation on May 19, 2014, depending on the Plaintiff’s reasons attributable. 2) As to whether the determination of the contract was made first, whether the access roads was not secured within six meters required by the relevant laws and regulations at the construction site of this case, and it seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion to this effect, and some descriptions and videos of evidence Nos. 17 through 19, 334, and 34 were received from