1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part which is dismissed or added as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) in accordance with the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the term “assumed” in the second sentence shall be read as “assumed”;

B. On September 10, 2010, the third part of the first instance court’s decision, “as a result of the modification of the development plan, the existing special structure design is modified from the “news bridge” to the “excess bridge.”

(c)No. 4. The following shall be added to the fourth decision of the first instance.

In the event that the whole or part of the service is suspended due to a cause attributable to the defendant under Article 17 (1) (i) of the Act on the Settlement of Service Costs when the service is suspended, the defendant shall refer to the payment method for the service costs until the time when the service costs already performed by the plaintiff are interrupted by consultation. (ii) In the event that the whole or part of the defendant's service is suspended due to a cause attributable to the plaintiff under Article 16, the plaintiff shall refer to the compensation

From the fourth side of the judgment of the first instance court, “(4)” was added to “(hereinafter referred to as “authorization of the instant implementation plan”).”

(e)Paragraphs 9 to 6 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied in accordance with the following, on the 5th to 6th of the judgment:

B. The scope of service charges under each of the instant contracts for the reduction of service charges following the Defendant’s non-performance of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 does not simply include the design map, but also include the authorization and permission business, such as holding consultations with relevant agencies so that the Defendant can obtain authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project. However, the Plaintiff did not perform all the authorization and permission business, such as holding consultations with relevant agencies. The Defendant is notified of the return of the implementation plan on January 17, 2014.