1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 8,956,359 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from June 17, 2017 to November 12, 2019.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 603,700,00. (2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s assertion and its determination should be made. (i) While the design drawings of this case allow the Plaintiff to construct the walls with walls, the Plaintiff arbitrarily changed construction methods and constructed the remainder with CIP walls, and reduced construction cost of KRW 61,159,279. As a result, the Plaintiff did not arbitrarily damage or remove the fences of nearby G building while performing the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of the instant construction work to the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if the Defendant had paid the remainder of the construction cost, the Plaintiff should be entitled to deduct the Plaintiff from the total soil-related construction cost of the instant construction work from the total soil-related construction cost. However, the Plaintiff’s soil-related construction cost should not be reduced to KRW 11,00,000 from the total soil-related construction cost.