1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified in light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following parts and the judgment equivalent to that of paragraph (2), and therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O) The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance ① The defendant's "in the 11st part of the judgment of the court of first instance," as the "Plaintiff's".

② On the 8th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s rashness in the 19th century is considered as the Plaintiff’s rashness.

③ On the face of the first instance judgment, the Defendant appears to be “Defendant” in the second instance judgment as “Plaintiff.”

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal is reasonable to interpret Article 1 of the instant contract as “the Plaintiff does not claim additional expenses to the Defendant with respect to the design change and additional part ordinarily occurring within the scope of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” in accordance with the party’s intent, transaction practices, social justice and equity ideology. However, the Plaintiff was required to pay the additional expenses for 261 days (goods) exceeding the original scheduled working days (160 days). However, the additional expenses exceed the ordinary scheduled scope, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the additional personnel expenses to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant promised to pay the additional personnel expenses to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) First of all, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings adopted by the court of first instance as seen earlier concerning the interpretation of Article 1 of the instant contract, namely, ① the entire construction related to the instant contract is a Chinese factory automation, the ordering person is China E, and the original beneficiary is G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).