1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) In the course of performing the instant construction project, the Plaintiff filed nine additional construction costs, including steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and steel products and stock

However, if the defendant deducts 224,20,000 won already paid by the defendant from the above amount, 131,892,00 won will be applied.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff KRW 131,892,00 and damages for delay.

(2) Article 7 of the instant construction contract provides that, in the event of an additional work, the Plaintiff shall perform the work in compliance with the work instruction given by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff shall not make an additional settlement for the additional work without the work instruction as to the additional work order.

However, the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant of the details of the work, etc. while performing the additional construction as claimed by the Plaintiff (only sought payment of the additional construction cost under the pretext of settlement after the completion of the construction work) and accordingly did not receive the work order from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant does not have a duty to make the additional settlement to the Plaintiff according to the said special agreement.

(b) Even if the defendant is liable to pay for the additional work,

Even if the Plaintiff, during the instant construction project, destroyed one of the glass provided by the Defendant, and caused damages equivalent to KRW 16,597,387 with the replacement cost, the said money shall be deducted from the construction cost.

B. (1) Determination (1) The scope of the instant special engineer’s application and the principle of recognition of additional construction (A) the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as stipulated in paragraph (5) of the instant special engineer.