1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the evidence No. 10 of the first instance judgment of the first instance, which stated that “A No. 10” was “Evidence No. 7 and No. 10 of the first instance judgment,” (2)-1 of December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff predicted that the instant separate agreement amount will be determined in the future on the replacement table, and included it in the account subject of “construction loss appropriation liabilities” (Evidence No. 7 of the first instance judgment). Such appropriation liabilities are not determined during any accounting period but expected to occur in the future according to a certain standard.

In addition, the audit report (No. 3) of Ecertified Public Accountants, an external auditor for the business year 2013, should be paid for the settlement of business profits between the Plaintiff and the instant contractor, and it is stated that the amount of settlement of sales profit for the settlement of accounts has been determined around January 2014.

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff asserts that the separate agreement in this case is an additional compensation for the risk of recovering the construction cost of the instant construction project, and that it does not constitute the construction cost and does not aim at allocating the project benefits.

However, the separate agreement of this case is agreed separately from the construction cost based on the project implementation profit after the settlement of the construction cost, and such agreement cannot be deemed as a direct construction cost, not as a distribution of the project implementation profit, on the ground that it has the nature of compensation for the risk of not recovering the construction cost. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.