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 this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some contents as follows.

2. Part II, Nos. 8, 9, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance added or added by this court are as follows:

D On August 30, 2017, the contract amount was 575,122,50 won (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period was fixed as of October 30, 2017 and sub-subcontracted to the Defendant for a total of 11 history platform floor works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) including E Station, F Station, G Station, H Station, and I Station.

The third part of the judgment of the first instance is “C. 3.” The third part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. The third part to fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. D. The Defendant experienced difficulties in carrying out the instant construction work, such as delayed payment of personnel expenses invested in the construction site of this case. On December 26, 2017, the Defendant waived the instant construction work. After December 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) between D and D on December 28, 2017, the floor construction part of the E Station, etc. of the instant construction project (hereinafter “the floor construction of E Station, etc.”).

D) On December 28, 2017, the construction contract was re-established with respect to only the contract amount of KRW 119,975,50 (excluding value-added tax), and the construction period until the completion date of the construction manager’s completion. On December 28, 2017, D paid KRW 56,08,545 [the total sum of KRW 49,343,80 (total direct payment) 6,74,738 (amount of labor cost)] to the Defendant for the part of the floor project, such as E Station. The fourth, fourth, following the first instance judgment. [The 3, and fourth, the 1 through 6 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 4,9,12, and 13 as grounds for recognition, and the entire purport of the pleading No. 415 “Return”, “No. 251,281-2, 15-2, 201-3,” respectively, and “No. 185-2, 15-2,”

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is examined.