The appeal is dismissed.

All costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, where the construction was interrupted during the course of the construction project and the scheduled last process is not completed, the construction project shall be deemed to have been completed. However, if the construction is completed and the main structure of the construction is completed as agreed and it is necessary to make compensation due to incomplete construction, it shall be interpreted that the construction is completed, but it is a defect in the object.

Whether the last process of the scheduled work has been terminated or not shall be determined objectively in light of the specific contents of the contract and the good faith and good faith of the contract concerned.

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s application for approval of use of the instant plant by December 30, 2011, the Plaintiff did not obtain communications certificate and wastewater completion certificate from among the documents required for the Plaintiff’s application for approval of use of the instant plant until December 30, 201, which is the deadline for completion specified in the instant modified contract. However, as long as the communications construction and sewage construction were already completed on or around December 30, 201, the mere fact that the communications certificate and sewage completion certificate were not handed over to the Plaintiff cannot be determined that the instant construction was not completed solely on the ground that the communications construction and sewage completion certificate were not handed over to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “A”) in light of the aforementioned legal principles. Furthermore, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the former sewage supplier after the deadline for completion, and concluded a construction contract with the former sewage supplier and directly conducted the construction work. However, in light of the facts stated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s construction work by December 31, 2011 alone is insufficient.