1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the judgment as to the claim as the grounds for appeal, in particular, as the grounds for appeal by the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

An abbreviationd name established in the first instance judgment shall also be used as it is.

[Supplementary Rule] No. 5 of the first instance judgment "No. 5, 8, and 10" was written with "No. 5, 10" in the first instance judgment.

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "No. 3-1 through 3 of the evidence A" shall be applied to "No. 3-1, 2 of the evidence A. 3."

[Supplementary part of judgment] The following is added to the third and lower judgment No. 8 of the first instance judgment.

“Around this point, the Plaintiff had been at the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract, and even if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommends the Defendant to cancel the instant construction project, it is merely a natural recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the top priority to protect its citizens. On October 27, 2015, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy opened the Korea and the Committee for Cooperation with Resources, and discusses the way of entry into the company of Korea on October 20, 2015, and the Prime Minister talks with the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea on November 20, 2015, or the Korean company of Korea.

In light of the fact that the interest and support of the Cze Government were legitimate in making it possible to participate in a large number, and that at the time the Defendant notified the termination of the construction contract of this case, the Plaintiff was performing construction works for the construction of the Czek Normal School in the same region, the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as having caused an objective and apparent change in circumstances that are objectively impossible to maintain the construction contract of this case.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 11 through 14 (including each number) submitted by the plaintiff is not sufficient to conclude the instant construction contract.