1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The defendant’s additional argument is the same as the ground for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the argument added by this court, 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.

On December 15, 2015, the first instance court’s decision 2 pages 12 changed the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” to “Defendant A”; the Defendant’s “Defendant A” in the same page 13 to “Plaintiff A”; and the Defendant’s “Defendant around December 15, 2015,” respectively, to “Plaintiff A around December 15, 2015.”

The 10th 10th 10th 10th 3th 10th 10th 10th 3th 10th 10th 3th 10th 3th 10th 3th 10th 79,870,976th 11st 11st 10th 10th 10,000 “147,879,880th 10th 14th 14th 10th 2th 3th 2th 200.”

From 5 pages 20 to 6 pages 2 shall be amended as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Therefore, as to KRW 29,245,040 among the Plaintiff’s claims, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 8, 2017 to the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, with respect to KRW 2,229,50, which is the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, as to KRW 31,474,540, and from March 8, 2017 to the day of full payment.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking construction cost payment under the instant construction contract even though the actual party to the instant construction contract was the Plaintiff’s reference B, and the Plaintiff is not qualified as a party and thus, the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed.

② The Plaintiff submitted a receipt (Evidence A No. 17-1 and Evidence A No. 18-1) as evidence for KRW 1.7 million and KRW 1.2 million for accommodation expenses in October 2015 and for KRW 1.2 million in November 2015, however, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.