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 judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, except for partial revision or addition, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following shall be added to 6th day of the first instance judgment:

3) If additional loans (in the event of general loans and intermediate payments loans, etc. due to prior sale) other than policy funds are possible to carry out the construction smoothly, the defendant shall accept it, and in principle, the interest on additional loans shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Provided, That 2% interest on policy funds shall be borne by the defendant, and the amount shall be loaned by the plaintiff and settled after completion.

The 8th, 7, 8, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revised as follows. "On the other hand, 1.2 billion won which the defendant paid to the plaintiff shall be deducted from the claims such as the plaintiff's flag and loan.

Furthermore, as the contract of this case terminates due to the above reasons attributable to the plaintiff, the defendant has a claim for damages equivalent to the contract deposit amounting to KRW 70 million against the plaintiff, and the defendant has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the total amount of interest of general loans paid by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, which is equivalent to the

Accordingly, the defendant shall set off the plaintiff's claims such as debt and loan with each of the above claims.

"A. Termination and Cause of the Contract of this case" in the 8, 9, and 10 pages of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.

According to Article 32(1)3 of the General Conditions of the Contract for Private Construction Works incorporated into the contract of this case 1, the Plaintiff may rescind the contract of this case to “when the Defendant is deemed to be clearly unable to perform construction works due to his failure to perform the terms of the contract without good cause,” and there is a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the construction cost added according to the alteration of the purpose of use.