Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and the cancellation shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the cited part is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court, including the attached Form, except for a new part as described in 2. Paragraph (3). As such, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1) The witness of the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the second instance trial in the second instance trial in the second instance of the third party 19, 4th 9, 5th 21th 1, 4th 11, 21th 4th 5th 5 and 15th 5th 5th 15th 3th 3th 3th 3rd 3th 3th 3th 3th 5th

A. The testimony of the 11th trial and the 15th trial of the 4th trial and the 5th trial and the 15th trial and appeal are made.

A. The first instance court’s judgment of the first instance court in the first instance of the 7th party’s second instance was followed.

2. Determination as to the claim for additional construction cost

A. The asserted Plaintiff filed a claim for the total of KRW 12,980,000 ( KRW 1,980,000 ( KRW 23,300,000) for additional construction cost, which is not included in the instant construction contract.

As to this, the defendant did not make any additional construction work or agreed on the payment of the additional construction cost.

DaNN

B. In a case where one party in a contract agreement for construction works is able to demand a revision or addition of the content of construction works, or both parties agree to increase or decrease the amount of construction works, it should be proved that there was an additional construction work that was not originally contracted in the content of the completed construction work in order to pay the additional construction cost, and that there was an agreement between the parties to pay the additional construction cost (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63870, Apr. 27, 2006).

1) First, we examine the electrical pressure work of the examination center.

In full view of the evidence No. 1, No. 7-2, and No. 11, and the results of inquiries about the fact about the President of the Korean Military Service Department of the first instance.