The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the defendant's assertion in the court of first instance, and there is no additional evidence submitted to this court. According to the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the

Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, in addition to the partial dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The second five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “1. Basic Facts”) shall be read as “1. Recognition”.

The following shall be added to the 5th sentence of the first instance court at least 13:

"C. The defendant asserts that with respect to KRW 34,272,00 of the additional construction cost, the additional construction cost was made under F's direction, and the defendant did not have ordered additional construction cost.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments of evidence Nos. 2 and 21 through 23, namely, ① The defendant’s director, from November 3, 2017 to December 17, 2017, provided e-mail with the plaintiff and discussed the method of preparing the construction cost and estimates of the additional construction on the premise that the plaintiff is liable to pay the additional construction cost. ② At the time the additional construction was made, the defendant was merely a representative director at the time of the additional construction and was excluded from the ordinary construction work, and thus, he was registered as the defendant’s only director at the defendant’s registry from November 3, 2017 to December 12 of the same year, 2017. However, the defendant’s director, who was the defendant’s director, had the right to legitimately represent the defendant, and there is no other limitation of H’s power of representation, ③ there is no reason to deem the defendant’s employee to use the additional e-mail as the defendant’s estimate.