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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of some of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"Nos. 9, 10, 16, and Nos. 16, 18 (including the number of pages)" shall be added to Section 3, 10, and 11 of the first instance judgment.

B. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the first instance, “Plaintiff” is added in front of “the above subcontract agreement”.

C. On the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the following: “The judgment dismissing each claim for the main claim and the remaining counterclaim” of the first instance judgment:

① In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that “the part of the new construction works in this case, other than the instant new construction works, was subcontracted by the Defendant, and completed the said construction works as the Defendant’s performance assistant.” However, in the first instance of the instant case, the relevant case, the Plaintiff continued to claim that “the Plaintiff would not perform interior construction works and would have directly performed such construction works, and would deduct the amount of interior construction works from the cost of the new construction works in this case.” As to the scope of the subcontracted interior works, the Plaintiff took a contradictory position that it is irrelevant to the Defendant’s performance. ② With respect to the scope of the subcontracted interior works, the Plaintiff had already been subcontracted between the Defendant and the Es&D construction company, and thus, was awarded a subcontract for the remainder of the new construction works except for the remainder of the subcontracted construction works. However, the Plaintiff’s subcontract for the new construction works in this case did not include the details of the subcontracted construction works in Type 1,000 (No. 1,000).