1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (if there are serial numbers, including all them; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of Gap's testimony and all the arguments.

From March 23, 2012 to March 25, 2014, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the installation of the Ulleung-gun integrated waterworks (hereinafter “original construction”) from Gyeongung-gun for three times as indicated below (the Defendant was awarded the contract for the said construction on a total of four occasions from Gyeongung-gun to March 9, 2015, but the relevant part was related to the Plaintiff). As a result of changes in the design and construction volume in each of the above construction projects, the original construction amount was finally changed as listed below.

Serial 688,000,000 on March 26, 2013, May 31, 2013, 2013: (a) the contract amount (the original contract amount) on the date of the final change (the original contract date) as of the date of the initial change (the original contract date) on the date of the initial change (the original contract date); (b) 688,000,000 on March 26, 2014, May 26, 2014; (c) 68,000,000 on March 24, 2014; (d) 68,084,000,000,0000 on March 25, 2014; and (e) 983,000,0000,0000.

B. As to the water pipe construction work (from the Defendant’s main contract to the water pipe), the Plaintiff received each contract amounting to KRW 368,00,000 (an amount equivalent to approximately 83% of the amount of the original contract) from the Defendant around September 2012, taking the construction amount as KRW 433,90,000 (an amount equivalent to approximately 85% of the amount of the original contract amount) and the construction amount as KRW 138,890,000 (an amount equivalent to approximately 85% of the amount of the original contract amount) around September 2013, taking the construction amount as KRW 138,890,000 (an amount equivalent to approximately 85% of the amount of the original contract amount) from the Defendant; and ④ around April 2014, taking the construction period as the amount calculated by applying the ratio of the construction amount to KRW 75,00,000 each month.

The part of the water pipe construction work executed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant among the prime contractor construction work is referred to as “the instant tea construction work,” and the entire construction work is referred to as “the instant construction work.”

The primary works of this case are two works by the sequence 1 and the second and third works by the sequence 2 of the above table.