1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The grounds for this part of the facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second 12 to 38 pages), and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Grounds for the principal lawsuit;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost of this case is KRW 107,50,000 for additional construction cost, KRW 19,927,00 for additional construction cost (i.e., 10,000 for the boiler room and floor construction cost, KRW 10,000 for the expansion of the building area, for the stoves room construction work, for the stoves room construction work, part of the stoves room construction work, for the stoves room construction work, 9,927,00 for the stoves of the second floor, for the stoves room construction work, KRW 95,00 for the s toves room construction work cost, and for the s toves room construction work cost, KRW 1,586,00 for the s toves room construction cost, KRW 5,396,00 for the s toves room construction cost, KRW 105,000 for the s to be paid

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 25,445,00 to the plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

B. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to KRW 10,00,000 as additional construction cost while reducing the construction cost of this case to KRW 107,50,000 and expanding the building area to KRW 3 square meters.

(2) Next, we examine the basis and floor construction of boiler rooms, stowing construction, part of the string floor and roof construction, stringing room construction, and additional construction cost of balcony construction for the second floor bend floor.

In principle, in order to recognize the contractor's claim for the payment of the additional construction cost, there was an additional construction that had not been the original contract in the completed construction work, and it should be presumed that there was an agreement between the contractor and the contractor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63870, Apr. 27, 2006). Furthermore, in a case where there is a dispute as to what part of the construction is included in the original contract or whether it is an additional construction.