1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the payment order against the defendant B in excess of KRW 112,234,354 is ordered.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited or added by the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (3) below to the allegations that the Defendants have renewed or newly made, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as is

2. The portion of the report made or added shall be referred to as “appraisals” collectively as “appraisals of the first instance trial.”

14. (1) The summary of the Defendant B’s assertion as to Defendant B’s assertion (i) the design was not modified after the conclusion of the construction contract, and each of the above construction contracts “detailed specifications” was prepared, and as such, the additional construction cost that is not included therein cannot be acknowledged.

Even if not, the Plaintiff failed to complete the instant construction within the agreed time limit, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim the additional construction cost pursuant to Article 9 of the instant defect repair contract.

(2) First, determination (A) is accepted as to the assertion ① the fact that the specifications of each special case have been formulated in the Health Unit and the Construction Contract in Articles 1 through 3.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the additional construction works recognized prior to the date of the establishment of the headquarters are different from the parts specified in the specifications of each of the above special items; (b) the specifications of each of the above special items are not indicated in the specifications that Defendant B did not bear the additional construction cost, or that the Plaintiff cannot claim it; and (c) the construction cost of the portion of the additional construction works that the Plaintiff performed in relation to the construction contract of between B and B was reached KRW 50,398,987 and it is difficult to deem that the said recognition is within the scope of the original scheduled construction work when compared with the total construction cost.