1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The “609,516,322 won” in the column of the sum of 5 20 junives, 7 17 junives and 21 junives of the first instance judgment shall be amended to “337,323,321 won”.

The following shall be added to 7 pages 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance:

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the standard drawing does not go through a legitimate design modification procedure, it should not be calculated for the Plaintiff’s damage. However, it is difficult to deem that the approved drawing is a drawing that did not go through a legitimate design modification procedure, as well as that it is also difficult to view that the approved drawing is a drawing that did not go through a legitimate design modification procedure, and that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s senior supervisor jointly file a joint report on the change of the design or minor modification to the competent authority, and even though the approved approval drawing approved by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s senior supervisor was submitted to the competent authority, it cannot be deemed that they should compensate for damage by examining whether the project approval drawing was non-construction or the modified construction based on the previous project approval drawing. The Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

【B) The Plaintiff asserts that the construction cost equivalent to the above amount should be settled in accordance with Article 8 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, since the construction by Defendant Newdong Construction, compared to the project approval drawings, substantially unfair results have occurred by doing subordinate construction work equivalent to the above amount of KRW 404,573,325.

The fact that Article 8 of the General Conditions of the Contract for the Construction Contract of this case provides for the adjustment of the contract amount by mutual consultation within the extent not exceeding the actual cost when the contract contents are changed.

However, even according to Article 8 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, the contract amount is not adjusted solely on the fact that there is a change in the terms of the contract.