1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, and such reasoning is the same as the ground for the first instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From 5th to 6th 9th am the following.

[B] According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7 as to the expenses for the exercise of the right of retention, the fact that the Defendant spent the total of KRW 104,507,060 (hereinafter “the expenditure for additional construction expenses”) with respect to the construction site of this case from August 2013 to February 2014 by the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of retention is recognized.

However, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 and witness D’s testimony and arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded the first and second alteration contract with respect to the instant construction works, and extended the construction period of 303 days (from July 31, 2013 to May 30, 2014) through the first alteration contract concluded on March 19, 2014; extended the construction period of 89,100,000 won; extended the construction period of 77 days (from May 30, 2014 to August 15, 2014 to the extent that the defendant paid the additional construction period of 77,000,000 won; the amount of the new construction period of the new construction contract concluded on August 5, 2014 to the extent that the new construction contract was concluded by the defendant to the extent that the new construction contract was concluded by the defendant to the extent that the new construction contract was concluded by 100,000 won."