1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal and the plaintiff's grounds for incidental appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. The facts established and the judgment of the court of first instance are legitimate even if the result of the inquiry into the head of Seongbuk-gu Office of this Court is examined additionally by the court of first instance, as stated in the evidence Nos. 13, 14, 12-1, 12-4, 15-1, 15-2, 15-2, and the fact-finding inquiry into the head of Seongbuk-gu Office of this Court.

Accordingly, the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: "A person is under way," " may be under way," "a person is under way," "a person is under physical responsibility" in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance in Part 3 in Part 8, "a person is under way," "a person is under way," "in part 10 in Part 10," "B" in Part 10, "a person is under way," and "a person is under way," and "a person is under way," and "b" in the part 2. A person is added or written in part 2. A person is under way, other than the other person's argument added or written in addition, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written in the parallel Nos. 16 to 5, is reversed as follows.

A) On the basis of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a subcontract for the instant FF Corporation; and (b) the fact that the construction cost was KRW 30,50,000 (the value-added tax is set aside separately; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant included the provision that “after-sales settlement of the construction volume,” including the provision that “after-sales settlement of the construction volume,” was based on the aforementioned basic facts; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the first instance witness C and D, after the completion of the instant F Corporation, the Plaintiff’s employees and the Defendant’s employees measured the construction volume including additional construction works and additional materials for the instant FF Corporation among the police officers on December 2, 2014; and (e) the construction cost of the instant F Corporation was actually measured, 22