1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant deleted 9,10 of the title No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance, and the reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under the following paragraph No. 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the additional construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in relation to the instant construction project, and submitted additional evidence Nos. 7 and 8 at the trial. However, this is merely a evidence as to the additional construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that the additional construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant even if considering the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the first trial. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserted the deduction amount of KRW 102,326,92 (i.e., KRW 100,665,552) that the Defendant directly handled by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s construction cost (i.e., KRW 100,665,552, which the Defendant had already claimed at the first instance court to deduct KRW 147,865,552 from the first instance court, but the Defendant withdrawn the amount of KRW 37,200,00 for delay compensation, and the cost for industrial accident accident-related expenses of KRW 10,000 for the first instance court. The Defendant claimed that the amount exceeds the remainder of the Plaintiff’s construction cost, and thus, the Defendant has no additional payment of the construction cost.

However, in light of the statement of evidence No. 1-3, No. 3, No. 7, 8, and 19, the above amount claimed by the defendant as a deduction is the cost of other daily materials, the cost of daily labor, the cost of transporting other daily materials, the cost of transport of other daily materials, and the cost of construction by the defendant excluded from the subcontract between the plaintiff and the defendant among the cost of other daily works, it is recognized that the above evidence No. 1-3 has been altered.