1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the above appraisal entrustment results with respect to Gap's evidence Nos. 5-1 to 7, Gap's evidence Nos. 6 and 8, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as additional evidence submitted by this court, and the appraisal entrustment with the appraiser C by this court is merely calculated for the construction cost as to the excessive construction area claimed by the plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that the above appraisal entrustment results are sufficient to recognize that the construction contract of this case is in the form of unit price contract or the part of the excessive construction area by the plaintiff's deception is executed by the defendant's deception. Further, the above appraisal entrustment results are insufficient to recognize that the construction contract of this case is in the form of unit price contract or the part of the excessive construction area by the plaintiff's deception. The above appraisal entrustment is not sufficient. The court's explanation is dismissed, and after the "No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" added "No. 5 of the first instance"

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal and the claims expanded in this court shall be dismissed in entirety.