1. Of the principal lawsuit of Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Co., Ltd., the KRW 15,300,000 among the principal lawsuit of Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the date of full payment from February 22, 2011 to the date of full payment.

A. As a result, the Defendant calculated the amount of increase due to the reduction or additional construction and submitted a construction account settlement proposal. On September 14, 2010, the Defendant arranged and responded to the Defendant’s position on the settlement of construction price, and stated the following details in the construction account settlement proposal submitted by the Plaintiff A:

1.In addition, your additional construction cost of KRW 475,684,00 shall be subject to mutual agreement after the alteration of structure, whether there is any amount to be paid after voluntary alteration, non-construction, and defective construction.

The error of the amount of structural change calculation was deducted from the Aggregate Corporation the amount of 275,000,000 won (250,000,000 additional tax) for the underground set reduction construction cost.

This is an amount due to a change in the structure, and it should not be deducted from the structural change.

2. A’s additional construction cost of KRW 475,684,00 shall be excluded from the scope of construction cost corresponding to the special agreement (L), and as it is in the calculation of the non-execution, I want to settle the case at the time of completion of the non-execution investigation.

* In light of the your letter of Agreement, calculated the amount of execution of the basic construction (art) in the form of 250,000,000 won

(250,000,000 25,000,000 =275,000,000) Therefore, it shall not be possible to deduct the amount of structural change from the amount of structural change.

㈑ 그 후에도 원고 A과 피고 사이에는 당사자 사이에 정산할 금액이 있다는 것을 전제로 2010. 12.경까지 이 사건 공사대금의 정산 방안에 대하여 수차례 공문을 주고받았다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 20 (including the number of pages), the purport of the entire pleadings ? ? judgment ? although the contract of this case has a provision not to increase the construction cost under the contract of this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, i.e., the settlement of the construction amount due to the modification of the design after the construction of this case, are erroneous. ② The consultation on settlement between the parties on the premise that the settlement of construction amount due to the modification of the design after the construction of this case is necessary.