1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

With respect to this case, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The attached Table 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is " March 4, 2014" in the 6th sentence as " March 4, 2013."

In the last half of the 11th decision of the first instance court, the phrase “the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate is considered as expenses,” and therefore, even if B did not cause any electrical construction equivalent to the above KRW 10 million received from the Plaintiff, it is liable for the Defendant to compensate for the damages incurred therefrom.”

In the 13th judgment of the first instance court, “the Plaintiff has suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 560,412,00, such as a decrease in the sales amount” means that “the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 560,412,000, out of the damages of KRW 560,412,00, incurred by the Plaintiff due to the decrease in sales amount due to the suspension of production.”

The following of the 13th judgment of the first instance court, "it is difficult to set aside" in the 7th judgment, stating that "the plaintiff did not perform the platform construction in accordance with the mixing contract of this case, although it was obligated to do so, the plaintiff did not perform it, and later, the platform construction at the time of the agreement of this case, instead of the plaintiff, agreed to allow the plaintiff to do the electrical construction for the future, the delay in the latter electrical construction, which caused the suspension of production,

However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the testimony of witnesses E of the first instance trial, are separate from the type of the instant electrical construction and the mixed construction contract, and the Defendant’s construction at the time of each of the instant contracts is not the construction to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract. The statement of “the platform included” among the estimates attached to the instant mixed construction agreement is the sole fact that the Defendant is existing.