1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, since it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

An abbreviationd name set forth in paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment shall also be used as it is.

The attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be deemed attached, and it shall not be separately attached.

(g) Article 1-7 (g) of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance provides that "However, the plaintiff did not submit documents necessary for the re-determination of the cost of the household facilities or the cost of measurement (Articles 5, 12 through 13)" shall be construed as "However, the plaintiff has only re-explosived the above supplementary matters twice without modification and supplementation, and did not submit supplementary documents necessary for the re-determination of the cost of the household facilities and the cost of measurement."

The part of Paragraph 1 (j) of the first judgment of the court of first instance (No. 6) that "the plaintiff has arrived at the defendant," added "the plaintiff has withdrawn from the trial proceedings on July 26, 2017."

Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the first instance [based on recognition] of paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the "Evidence 27" (No. 3 below) with "No. 27,30".

2. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. According to the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, the instant construction project: (a) the work efficiency applied by the Defendant to the calculation of the price of the base destruction; (b) the construction cost of the base destruction, 59,324,538 won, reduced unilaterally by the average volume of rocks crushed; and (c) the construction cost of the household installation increased by adding c7,25,024 won due to the change of the installation server method at the time of the second design modification; (c) the construction cost of the household installation increased by the increase of the period of use of the household installation; and (d) the construction cost of the household installation increased by the increase of the period of use of the household installation; and (e) the installation of earth walls is not necessary on the part arbitrarily by the Plaintiff.