1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 24,688,147 and KRW 23,349,460 among them.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the facts are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first instance judgment”). At the bottom of the second sentence, the term “259,050,000 won” is added later (including value added tax; hereinafter referred to as “value added tax”).

At the bottom of the same side, the term "second-class column" shall be dried into "on the left side of the column".

The "attached Form 29" shall be added in front of the same "attached Form".

Part 4, "2015." shall be changed to "2014."

The last "witness" of the same side shall be regarded as a "witness of the first instance trial".

Part 5, "The result of appraisal by appraiser G" shall be "the result of the appraisal of construction cost settlement by appraiser G in the first instance trial."

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 80,430,931 (i.e., the instant additional construction cost of KRW 231,880,000, the instant additional construction cost of KRW 39,600,000 - the fixed payment amount of KRW 191,049,069) and delay damages.

B. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mutual aid due to a decrease in quantity among the vagabonds, the vagabonds portion among the instant construction works was to be settled according to the actual quantity based on the instant drawings attached to the instant change agreement.

However, the overall length of the ditches constructed by the Plaintiff has decreased, and unlike the drawing of this case, the left heat of the French pole has not been disposed of to the Aluminium board in accordance with the modified drawings of this case, so the volume has decreased in the column, and the width of the vagabonds has been significantly reduced, etc., the actual quantity of the vagabonds constructed by the Plaintiff was reduced to more than what is scheduled in the modified contract of this case.

Therefore, the above has been reduced.