The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in part by the court below, the court below, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, determined that Article 24 (4) and 24 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008) (attached Form 2) shall apply to the construction cost-sharing contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the construction of the housing complex and the main facilities to install the national rental housing in accordance with subparagraph 3 of the same Article (attached Form 2) with respect to the electric arterial facilities and the scope of the cost-bearing ratio of the construction of the housing complex and the main facilities to install the national rental housing in accordance with subparagraph 3 of the same Article (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction project”).

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 2 and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court, based on its reasoning, is reasonable to deem that, at the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculated the construction cost for the instant construction project, the Defendant calculated the construction cost for the instant construction project once by dividing it into three times, and that the Defendant confirmed whether the construction cost calculated by the Plaintiff is appropriate, and agreed to separately determine the payment of the additional construction cost by consultation with the original Defendant.