1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The fifth half of the judgment of the court of first instance was followed by the following:

“As seen earlier, if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were liable for delay while entering into a construction agreement and settlement of accounts on March 4, 2015, then the damages for delay therefrom was discussed together with the Defendant’s delayed liability, but only the construction cost was determined based on the cryptron, and no mention or reservation was made with respect to the damages for delay.”

B. The fifth 9-12 of the judgment of the court of first instance held that the portion “in advance payment of KRW 300,000 and there shall be no obligation to pay 300,000 to 12 shall be

“The Defendant has agreed to make a advance payment of KRW 300 million, and the Defendant does not have a duty to pay the amount for the first completed payment at the time of completion of the structural construction in two installments in order to achieve the same effect as the payment in cash for the payment in cash.” However, the Defendant does not have a duty to pay the amount for the second completed payment at the time of completion of the structural construction, as the structural construction was not completed.”

C. At 5th 16th 16th eth 16th eth eth eth 9 of the first instance judgment, “No. 7 and No. 8” were applied as follows.

“Written evidence No. 9 (I’s factual confirmation), and the testimony of witness I of this Court are inconsistent with that of the Plaintiff, I’s employee and the dynamics of J, the Plaintiff’s internal director, the contents of the instant construction contract, which is a disposal document, and the Plaintiff’s payment of the construction cost for August 4, 2014. It is difficult to believe it as it is, in light of the following: (a) it is inconsistent with that of the Plaintiff’s employee and the Plaintiff’s employee; and (b) it is also inconsistent with that of the Plaintiff’s payment of the construction cost for August 4, 2014; and (c) it is difficult to write Gap evidence No.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is correct.