1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective primary claim added by this court and the conjunctive claim are all filed.

2.

1. The following reasons are stated by the court of the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Parts in height and

3. Except for the additional determination, 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, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Parts in height:

A. During the second and second procedures of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “the cost of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation KRW 236.4 million (the cost of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation KRW 185,789,000)” shall be deemed to read “the cost of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation installation installation KRW 185,789,000.”

B. Of the first instance judgment’s 1 and 2, “Additional Construction Agreement of KRW 235,789,000 for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior walls” shall be deemed as “Additional Construction Agreement of KRW 185,789,00 for the interior interior interior interior interior interior works.”

3. Additional determination (a claim added in the trial);

A. As the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 180 million to the Plaintiff at the end of December 2014 or on January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 178,000,000 as claimed by the Plaintiff out of the agreed amount.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the defendant received E phone call from the plaintiff that the defendant performed human test work at the request of the plaintiff on January 28, 2015 and told Eul that "in 18,000,000 won additional expenses are paid to E".

However, in full view of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings, there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant before the above currency (the plaintiff's assertion amount to KRW 90 million, the defendant's assertion amount to KRW 720 million), and the difference was KRW 180,000,000,000, which the plaintiff asserted in this case. The defendant again resolved with the plaintiff and would pay the plaintiff a more amount of KRW 180,000,000,000 corresponding to the difference.