1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420

See the text of the judgment of the first instance court 9th 11th Nanaa’s “in the case of the instant construction project for the purpose of re-design and repair of drainage locks, which have been exposed to seawater, etc. for a long time due to exposure to seawater, etc.”

Then, “The use and recovery rate of “PS Ball” in the text of the judgment of the first instance may vary depending on the on-site conditions or equipment size of the equipment, work executor’s skill, etc., and, in particular, in the case of the on-site painting, the amount and recovery rate of “PS Ball” may vary depending on the type of the equipment used at the site, the size of the equipment used at the site and the level of work executor’s skill, etc.” (Article 3) are added to “The producer of “PS Ball”.

The following is added to the 10th 13th 10th 13th son of the judgment of the first instance, “No error in the application of the doctrine shall be deemed to constitute a ground for design change (Article 6 and 7).”

Following the 11th sentence of the first instance judgment, “The Defendant appears to have applied risk increase, complicated structure increase, etc. to the estimated construction cost in consideration of the characteristics of the construction site at the time of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement.”

After the 12th sentence of the judgment of the first instance, “no ground exists” was added to “(the Plaintiff shall not accept each of the above claims based on the premise that it cannot be recognized as the ground for design change as seen earlier, although the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost claim on the ground of the above circumstances, the damages claim due to nonperformance or tort, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment.”

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff.