1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's contract against the defendant on November 28, 2014.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance, which added the phrase “a letter of performance” (hereinafter “the letter of performance”) following the “written statement of performance” of the first instance judgment No. 3 on the part in the bill of execution, to the following.

2.(a)

3) As set forth in the following, since the Defendant did not complete the instant work by the date of completion of the agreement, the amount of KRW 1,193,350,000 for delay compensation for 823 days from March 1, 2015, which is the day following the date of completion of the agreement, until May 31, 2017, which is the day before the scheduled date of approval for use (=1,450,000 x 1/100 x 823) shall be deducted from the construction price of the instant case.

Reasons for the judgment of the first instance court

3.(c)

A. As set forth in the following, every effort shall be held as follows. Determination as to whether to deduct KRW 180,000,000 paid for a comprehensive construction. 1) Inasmuch as the formation of a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.

Where a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties becomes an issue, the interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the disposal document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776 Decided February 15, 2017, etc.). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, Feb. 15, 2017).