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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case's "3. Judgment" (No. 3. 13. hereinafter.) of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 69,200,000 (=209,000,000 - 139,800,000), which was not paid out of the construction cost, on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s determination of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the agreed construction cost was completed.

(2) In order for the Plaintiff to claim for additional construction costs to the Defendant, it must prove that the additional construction has been implemented beyond the original construction scope.

However, even if all the evidence presented in the first instance court and in this court were examined, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an additional construction work exceeding the contractual scope, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole, comprehensively taking into account evidence Nos. 9, 10, and evidence Nos. 5 and 24, evidence Nos. 5 and 24, witness E’s testimony, appraiser F’s appraisal, and fact-finding results, the part claimed by the Plaintiff as an additional construction is merely deemed as having been included and settled in the modified contract concluded on September 14, 2015 (hereinafter “amended contract”), and it is not recognized as an additional construction that should pay the construction cost separately.

① On July 2015, prior to the conclusion of a modified contract, the Plaintiff had already reported the construction cost of the construction corresponding to the main portion of the additional construction claimed by the Plaintiff, including reinforced soil construction, access winders, external eGI fences and fences construction.

Since then, the plaintiff and the defendant have paid the construction cost in writing 20%.