1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff lost the conjunctive claim that constitutes a revocation order.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 3, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Busan High Court for the Ulsan District Court’s new construction works (hereinafter “new construction works of the instant court”) with the cost of construction 38,831,384,000 won, and the construction period from August 3, 2011 to August 1, 2014. On March 4, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted the said new construction works of the instant glass Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant glass Corporation”) with the cost of construction 783,20,000 won (hereinafter “foreign Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant new construction works”) for the period from March 4, 2013 to August 1, 2014.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the TPP system construction (hereinafter “instant TPP construction”) from the Non-Party Company during the instant glass construction period from May 1, 2013 to August 1, 2014 by setting the construction amount of KRW 247,50,000, and the construction period from May 1, 2013 to August 1, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant TPP construction contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company.

On October 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant TPG construction, and entered into a contract on December 20, 2013 to increase the construction amount to KRW 381,590,000 with Nonparty Company and the construction amount to KRW 381,59,00.

(hereinafter “instant TPP change contract”). D.

On the other hand, around January 10, 2014, Nonparty Company submitted to the Defendant a “certificate of completed construction” (Evidence No. 12) stating that the amount of construction cost of the instant glass project would be reduced from KRW 783,200,00 to KRW 725,890,000, and that the amount of completed payment until January 10, 2014 would be KRW 725,890,000, and that the non-party Company would waive the construction work on January 10, 2014, and “written waiver of construction (Evidence No. 13)” (Evidence No. 13) stating that the non-party Company would waive the construction work.

E. Around January 14, 2014, Nonparty Company was treated in default, and the Defendant paid to Nonparty Company a total of KRW 725,890,000 as the instant glass construction cost by January 27, 2014.

F. Around March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff increased the construction price of this case pursuant to the change agreement with the non-party company to the Defendant, which was 134,090.