1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) in the judgment of the first instance amounting to KRW 1,968,382,755 and its related thereto.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is the same as that of the 2nd 10 to 15th 15th tier of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the principal claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance from 17th to 18th, respectively. Thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim for liquidated damages is the same as that of the 6th to 7th 17th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The plaintiff intentionally delayed construction of the new construction of this case and ceased construction of the new construction of this case, and the defendant urged to do so regardless of the waiver of construction regardless of whether it is the construction, and the plaintiff could not waive the construction without any debate about the responsibility for delay of construction.

B) Accordingly, the Defendant’s delay in construction is deemed to constitute an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, or a juristic act contrary to social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction payment against the Defendant should be dismissed as it constitutes an abuse of rights, even if it is not so, it constitutes an abuse of rights.

2. The plaintiff intentionally delayed the new construction of this case and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the construction has been suspended, and instead, the fact that the defendant is responsible for the delay of new construction of this case is the same as the above, and all other investigations adopted by the court.