1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the member of the party citing the judgment of the court of first instance states concerning this case are as follows: the "this court" in the 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "court of first instance"; the 8th of the 7th of the 8th of the 7th of the 7th of the 1999 as "F of the witness of the court of first instance"; the 16th of the 16th of the 7th of the 16th of the 1999 as "K of the appraiser of the first instance"; the 9th of the 7th of the 9th of the 7th of the 9th and the 16th of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th of the 19999.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion (A) as to the part concerning the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant golf practice range was delayed due to the delay of electrical fire-fighting construction works within the scope of construction by the Defendant Company’s contract to Hansung Building Design after completion of the construction work around July 2010. As such, the delay in the instant construction work is not C but the Defendant Company’s liability.

According to Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 21 (including each number, if the plaintiff has a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant company entered into a construction contract with Hansung Building Design on December 1, 2009 and completed the construction on April 9, 2010, but it can be recognized that the test construction was completed on May 14, 2010 (the plaintiff asserted that the test construction was completed on July 2010, but the witness F's testimony alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise) while the defendant company was responsible for the construction of this case to be completed by December 17, 2009, which was the scheduled date for completion of the work, as seen earlier.