1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

In the judgment of this court, the plaintiff sought the refund of additional construction costs due to the removal from the first instance court, ② the remainder of the construction cost, ③ the remainder of the construction cost paid as a check, ④ the remainder of the rental fee for private land, ⑤ the excess of the rental fee for private land, ⑤ the refund of food and labor costs.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim for the additional construction cost due to the removal from the part of the claims, ② the remainder of the construction cost, ⑤ the excess of the construction cost, ⑤ the remainder of the construction cost and the refund of labor cost, and ③ the balance of the construction cost paid as a check, ④ the claim for the remainder of the rent paid as a substitute for the private land, respectively.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, and there was no objection to the remainder of the construction work, the amount of the remaining construction work, the amount calculated by deducting excessive amounts, and the refund of labor costs.

In addition, the defendant filed an incidental appeal against the whole part of the loss.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim regarding the return of the remaining construction cost, the excessive amount deducted, and labor cost was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Basic Facts

On July 20, 2009, Hyundai MCo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “NMco”) was awarded a contract for construction of housing and infrastructure from the Administrative Development Agency (ODAC, NAC, and AO) of the People’s Socialist Republic of Libya (hereinafter referred to as the “Libya”), and from the outside part of Libya, to build new housing and infrastructure.

On January 20, 2010, Hyundai MEX awarded a subcontract for the construction work of the said construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) to the Plaintiff by setting the construction work period into 9,630,000 European Union currency (hereinafter omitted) and the construction work period from January 20, 201 to January 31, 201 (hereinafter “B as of May 31, 201”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). The content of the instant contract consists of direct expenses and direct expenses equivalent to 1% of the direct expenses of the Korea War.