1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim of the Plaintiff-Successor who participated in the court, shall be amended as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the conclusion among the reasons to be stated in the instant case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the reasoning is modified or added as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. The contents of the “content” table No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is used or added, are as follows:

The following shall be added to the fourth Schedule of the first instance judgment of "The completion of construction is delayed due to the defendant's reasons, such as the failure to pay the first progress payment, the failure of fire-fighting supervisor and the delay in preparation of the certificate of completion of groundwater":

h. On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor rendered the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the District Court Decision 2019TTTTT67739, which was rendered on October 7, 2019, to KRW 220,372,400, out of the amount to be paid by the Defendant pursuant to the judgment on the principal lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

) Upon receipt of the above order of seizure and collection, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the defendant, who is the garnishee on October 10, 2019, and became final and conclusive around that time." The court of first instance decides that the above 4 and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance under the name of the defendant, "I am different from that of the 4 and 5."

Of the 12 table of the judgment of the court of first instance, the contents in the column of “the plaintiff’s assertion”, which falls under the items of “unconstruction of the three-wheeled devices” and “construction of the boundary fences”, are as follows.

The following is added between the 14th four parallels and 5th parallels of the judgment of the first instance court, "it may not be installed merely because it is not required in the construction works itself or part of the object of the contract, but may be incidental in the course of the construction works."

The defendant found in the first instance court that the plaintiff paid 3,000,000 won to F as fire-fighting supervision fees. The part that the plaintiff paid 3,000,000 won to F as the fire-fighting supervision fees is F.