1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the reasoning of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the parts

The 5th to 6th 1st son of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

【No.D. The cancellation of construction business registration itself makes it difficult to expect the faithful performance of the relevant construction business. In addition, the cancellation of the construction business registration makes it impossible to make new construction cost impossible due to the cancellation of the construction business registration, the lending is restricted, and the issuance of a warranty certificate is impossible as a result of the impossibility of issuing a warranty certificate, and the following circumstances are not excluded from the risk to be interrupted due to the suspension of construction business. 【In full view of the facts recognized in the preceding and the following circumstances, the following circumstances” in the 6th 19th 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “In addition to the facts recognized in the foregoing, the evidence No. 20 through No.

The following shall be added to the 7th day of the first instance judgment and the 11th day after the first instance judgment:

【No. The Defendant requested the Korea Industrial Development Institute, a foundation, to calculate the amount of loss incurred by the amendment of the instant construction contract,” and the said Institute calculated the amount of totaling KRW 264,963,00 (i.e., the increase in the construction cost incurred by the amendment of the contract for the construction of the welfare center at KRW 239,444,00 as a result of the delay in construction of the construction of the welfare center at KRW 14,630,00 (Evidence 19) (No. 10,889,000 for the cost of site maintenance incurred due to the suspension of construction) (Evidence 19). Accordingly, the Plaintiff calculated the amount on the basis of the increase in the cost of materials and personnel expenses for the period of one year and four months. Since the Defendant’s delay in the selection of an enterprise subsequent to the amendment of the contract for the construction, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for the delay, and the amount of loss cannot be recognized

However, even if the defendant's resumption of construction work is delayed, it is fundamental.