1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence No. 19, Eul evidence No. 20, Eul evidence No. 19, Eul No. 20, Eul evidence No. 21, 22, and 23, each of the evidence No. 21, No. 22, and No. 23, and Eul evidence No. 24-1, No. 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 25, each of the evidence No. 24-1, No. 24-2, No. 24-3, and No. 25, each of the evidence No. 24-2, No. 25), which was submitted after the date of the argument of the court of the first instance, shall be dismissed or added, and the plaintiff's argument at the court of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,

From the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "duplicate of the payment order" of 5 and 6 under the bottom of 6 shall be deemed as the "duplicate of the payment order".

From the fourth side to the second half, Nonparty H, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, and the last parallel “H, an employee of the Plaintiff,” shall be deemed to be “I who is the representative director of the Plaintiff,” and at the fifth third parallel parallel, it is not clear whether the document referred by J from No. 7 (Recording) is identical with the document No. 4 (if the size and content are different), also the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff is “I” and the document No. 4 is written as “H.” If the Plaintiff’s employee K prepared the document No. 4 as alleged by the Defendant, then the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff would not have been written erroneously.”

At the bottom of the 5th page, the following shall be added:

④ The Defendant points out the increase of the unit price of the existing item in a written estimate as well as the unit price of the new item written in the written estimate, and asserts that the settlement details recognized in the prior ruling of this case were exaggerated.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 14 were included in the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and Won Construction Co., Ltd. entered into the instant lease agreement.