Of the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, it is related to KRW 1.5 million as of June 5, 2013, and KRW 1.7 million as of June 17, 2013.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined as follows: (a) insofar as it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant ultimately withdrawn from the instant association, which is a partner company with B around March 25, 201; (b) on September 21, 2012, the effect of the instant construction contract entered into in the name of the Plaintiff and the instant association on September 21, 2012, is below the Defendant; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 67,80,000,000,000 calculated by subtracting the down payment of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was the previous filing of the instant lawsuit, constituted KRW 2,50,00,000,00,00.

Examining the record, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. In light of the records as to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff agreed to separately collect the cost from B on the ground that the CNE and the CNE had been performed after the instant lawsuit was filed, and accordingly, the appraiser of the first instance judgment appraised the construction cost of the instant construction as 87.8% on the basis of only the remaining construction cost less the CNE and the CNE construction cost during the instant construction work. The lower court accepted it on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and accepted the construction cost under the instant construction contract and calculated the construction cost as KRW 87,80,000, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request may be deemed as follows: (a) KRW 1.5 million paid on behalf of the Plaintiff on June 5, 2013 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and KRW 1.7 million paid on June 17, 2013, to theO that performed the Columine and Siide Corporation at the Plaintiff’s request; and (b) thus, such agreement may be deemed to have been reached.