The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in KRW 43,367,823.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal as follows.

2. “C” in the part 3 pages 2, 3, 20 parallel 2, 3, 3-20 parallel 20 parallel 2, “A” in the part 4-2, 4-2, “B” in the part 4-2, 4-1, 30 parallel 2, 30 parallel 20 parallel 20 parallel 2, 30 parallel 20 each, “A” in the part 4-2 parallel 4-2.

4 The defendant already paid KRW 10,500,000 to the plaintiff as the cost of removal, and the fact that the contract is expressly stated in the contract shall be added to "the fact that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to bear additional KRW 5,00,000 in addition to the above KRW 10,50,000 as the cost of removal, in addition to the above KRW 10,50,000,000.

4쪽 11 행부터 5쪽 4 행까지를 아래 『』 와 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

3) The Defendant did not agree on the payment of the construction cost between the original Defendant with respect to the increased portion of the cost in the face of flapsing after the flapsing up of the flapsys of the flapsy on the basis of the flapsy (No. 4-2) that the designer sent the Defendant

The argument is asserted.

According to Eul evidence No. 4-2, it can be recognized that the F sent a note to the Defendant on February 9, 2018, and the original Defendant went through several times until August 1, 2018. Accordingly, the original Defendant agreed to pay the construction price for the increased cost in relation to the erode, if the erode was accumulated after the erogateic erogateic erogateic erode.g., the amount of the construction cost.

At the time of February 9, 2018, only one met is removed and there was no agreement on the part.

It does not mean that they are.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff with respect to the electrical construction, wood construction, and the external construction during the additional construction cannot be confirmed as to whether the additional construction cost claimed by the plaintiff has been paid.

However, the defendant had an additional construction work.