1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

o In the 5th judgment of the first instance court, "the testimony of the witness of the trial and the inquiry results to the head of Jongno-gu Office of the court of first instance" shall be added as the ground for the judgment of the first instance.

o The 6th and 8th (10th (11) of the 5th (5th) of the first instance court judgment shall be written in 11th (11).

o Article 18 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 9 of the judgment, “I cannot calculate” and “I shall add “(the same shall apply even if the data on the monthly use of tap water is visible)” to “I”.

o Article 13 of the first instance court’s judgment regarding Defendant C’s assertion is subject to the following parts: (a) the part of the judgment on the items of “4. Civil Works and the Obstruction of Audios” among “Defendant C’s assertion.” It is insufficient to recognize that the materials submitted by the Defendant alone concluded the instant contract on the premise that the site of the instant building is soil-to-soil.

Rather, the Plaintiffs and Defendant C may recognize the fact that the instant contract was concluded after the ground investigation and stability review on the site of the instant building was completed, so the judgment on the items of “3. creative modification” in the “ allegation on the details of additional construction costs” in the judgment of the first instance court Decision No. 13 subparag. 1, 201, “No. 13, 201, which was prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, by the construction company, did not engage in the said investigation at the time of the execution of the said investigation service.” As such, since materials were modified by this title differently from the description of the design drawing, it constitutes additional construction.

However, in view of the fact that Defendant C had already paid the construction cost of Changho Construction Co., Ltd. to Defendant C on March 21, 2012, the difference is given.