1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part resulting in dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the items of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, “Plaintiff Hanyang Development Co., Ltd.” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff Hanyang Industry Development Co., Ltd.” (the Plaintiff Hanyang Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., changed its trade name to the Hanyang Industry Development Co., Ltd., after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered).

The following shall be added in the item "(a) premised on the judgment of the first instance court" (from 8th to 13th, the 10th, the 11th, the 10th, the 10th, the 10th, the 11th, the 10th, the 2th,

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract does not constitute a long-term continuing construction contract, it is clear that the instant contract is a long-term continuing construction contract in the public announcement of the tender for the instant construction project (see subparagraph 1 of this paragraph) and, in light of the construction contract for the instant construction project (Evidence 1-1 of the Evidence A), the total additional construction cost is separately stated in addition to the contract amount for the first construction project, and the date of completion is also stated separately in the date of completion and the total date of completion of the first construction project, the completion inspection for each number of vehicles was separately conducted, and the construction cost is paid separately by the number of vehicles (see Evidence 23, 34, 35). Thus, the instant contract is obviously a long-term continuing construction contract. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

【】

(c) The following is added to the items “(2) increase in the construction cost according to the quantity of sand increase” in the judgment of the court of first instance (from 14th to 15th end of the judgment of the court of first instance) after the last 15th of the 14th action. Furthermore, according to the result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of the court of first instance, 15 tons of dump trucks.