1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in KRW 21,884,189.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an addition of the judgment of the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, even after the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion at the trial did not require the Defendant to continue construction of the remaining site in the form of soil market after the conclusion of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff’s order should also be included in the additional construction cost, such as the cost of dismantling and re-entering the equipment, such as the astronomical air, as it was no longer necessary for the Plaintiff to perform construction of soil spaces in accordance with CIP public law.

The Plaintiff submitted a weekly work report to the Defendant on February 22, 2016, when comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to evidence Nos. 20 and evidence Nos. 21-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to review the content that the CIP public law is changed to the TIP public law on the south side, and the fact that the Defendant did not immediately order the change to the CIP public law on the above request by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the circumstances cited above, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to maintain the soil market construction method at the south side site solely based on the foregoing circumstances.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant 1's assertion of the parties is set-off against the plaintiff's additional construction cost claims against the defendant with the following automatic claims, and is set-off against the plaintiff's counterclaim.