The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The quoted trial of the first instance court was closely examined the allegations of the parties concerned and the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court, but it does not seem that there was any error in fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, 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, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The fifth sentence of the first instance judgment "2,750,000,000 won" shall be added to "2,750,000,000 won" (including value-added tax).

The sixth sentence of the first instance judgment "3,359,334,00 won" has been added to "3,359,334,000 won (including value-added tax)".

No. 6 of the first instance court's text 21 of the first instance court's judgment "this court" shall be applied to "the first instance court".

The 7th written evidence of the first instance judgment "A No. 8" in the 7th written evidence of the first instance judgment shall be written with "A No. 5,8,20 through 23."

The 8th of the first instance judgment, the 17th of the 17th to the 9th of the first instance judgment, shall be followed as follows.

[Supplementary recording (A. 5, 20, 23) submitted by the Plaintiff appears to be erroneous in conversations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative director as to exemption of additional construction costs, but when it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative director have expressed the intent of the parties with the content of the recording. However, even according to each recording of the recording, the Defendant’s representative director appears to have expressed to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not claim additional construction costs prior to the payment of construction costs. However, the Defendant’s representative director decided not to receive large amount of construction costs due to the Defendant’s passive and family words of the Defendant’s representative director who had extended the construction period or discontinued loans, which had already been concluded in 2016.

It is difficult to see that it has been given or exempted, and otherwise, it is recognized that the defendant finally exempted the plaintiff from the obligation to pay the additional construction cost.