1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: “Construction of reinforced concrete among the instant construction” in Part 12 of the second part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “Construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant reinforced concrete construction”) among the instant construction; “Construction of reinforced concrete among the instant construction projects subcontracted by the Defendant” in Part 1 as “instant reinforced concrete construction project”; and “At the end of May 2016” in Part 4 under the aforementioned Table is deemed to be “after the end of April 2016,” and “after the date of preparation of the instant settlement agreement shall be deemed to be around April 2016, according to the each statement in the Evidence No. 15 and 16, the date of preparation of the settlement agreement in this case shall be deemed to be around April 2016, and the parties’ assertion on the date of preparation of the settlement in this case shall be deemed to be a clerical error,” and each of the parties’ assertion shall be deemed to be cited in the main text of Articles 21 through 414 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Judgment on the main claim (the claim for the agreed amount under the settlement agreement of this case)

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred while carrying out the instant reinforced concrete construction in accordance with the instant subcontract, such as delay in securing the construction site, delay in movement of obstacles, such as maritime structures, delay in supply and demand of ready-mixed, delay in construction due to continuous demonstration and early occupancy before completion, and the Defendant’s demand for additional construction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff incurred a loss equivalent to KRW 3,449,178,578.

As to the above loss, the plaintiff requested the defendant to preserve it, and the defendant's field manager F prepared the settlement agreement of this case that the defendant would pay the plaintiff's loss as the defendant's representative around April 2016, and even if F did not have the right to prepare the settlement agreement of this case on behalf of the defendant, even if it did not have the right to prepare the settlement agreement of this case on behalf of the defendant