1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the “appraisal” of the six-five-six (5)-six (6) of the first instance judgment is dismissed as “appraisal of the first instance judgment,” and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 23(1) of the General Conditions in the instant case provides that “an alteration to the terms of the contract, such as the period of construction, is the cause for the adjustment of the contract amount, and whether there is an alteration to the terms of the contract during a long-term continuing construction period, etc.

The total construction period of the instant construction contract was extended by 457 days in total from November 28, 201 to September 30, 2014 due to grounds not attributable to the Plaintiff, to “from November 28, 2011 to December 31, 2015,” and the Plaintiff requested the adjustment of the contract price for the extended construction period.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the additional indirect construction cost for 457 days for which the period of construction of the overall contract has been extended (i.e., indirect construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff via the indirect construction cost of KRW 1,785,403,90, which was paid by the Plaintiff via the subcontractor of KRW 1,283,63,253) and damages for delay thereof.

B. Even if a preliminary assertion should be made on the basis of the following contract, even if the existence of a change in the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the period of construction for a long-term continuing construction project, should be determined on the basis of the following contract, the period of construction for the second multiple contracts was extended by 122 days from June 24, 2014 to August 31, 2014, and the Plaintiff applied for the adjustment of the contract amount on August 4, 2014, which was before the completion of the second multiple contracts, and the period of construction for the third multiple contracts was “from January 1, 2015 to May 7, 2015” to “from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, at least 238 days prior to the completion of the contract, and the Defendant applied for adjustment of the contract amount to the Plaintiff on March 1, 2015 and December 15, 2015.”