1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning for this case is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

[Supplementary or added parts] Each "160 million won" in the 3th 20th 20th 2th 2th 3th 4th 2th 2th 3th 3th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 19

In the first instance judgment, the part of Articles 8, 8, 1, and 2 of the first instance judgment, “only based on the language and text thereof, such as the existence thereof, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant was not unilaterally prepared, but also made under an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, if the waiver of the first instance judgment is merely an unilateral preparation of the Defendant regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, it is an exceptional circumstance that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection even if he received the first refusal of the instant case that the Plaintiff would additionally bear the obligation to pay wages to the human body in excess of the construction price.”

Part 12, 21, 13, 10 of the judgment of the first instance, shall be reversed as follows.

In light of the facts stated in the evidence No. 6-1, No. 6-2, No. 4, and No. 5 as to whether the Defendant decided to pay value-added tax separately from the contract price of the instant 2, the following facts are stated as follows: (a) the construction contract of the instant 2 (Evidence No. 4); (b) the second waiver note (Evidence No. 6-1); and (c) the documents (Evidence No. 5) demanding the Plaintiff to pay the construction price of the instant 2 vessel after the completion of the instant 2 vessel construction; and (d) the documents (Evidence No. 62,50,000, respectively, without the statement that the contract price of the instant 2 vessel construction is separate from the contract price of the instant 2 vessel; (b) on the other hand, the said basic facts, No. 15, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu office of the Si/Gun/Gu under consideration.