The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s respective appeals against Defendant B and Defendant C and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 2nd 18th 2nd 18th 2th 2th 1st 2th 1st 2th 2th 2th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2

On the 4th three pages of the first instance judgment, the phrase “A3 and 6 evidence” and the witness G testimony alone are as follows: “A’s 3,6, and 9 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of witness G of the first instance court is alone.”

From 4th to 15th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed.

1) The defendant company's assertion of the defendant company paid directly to the plaintiff's creditors additional construction cost of KRW 253,230,511 [the additional construction cost of KRW 325,230,511 (the additional construction cost of KRW 72,00,00 which is difficult to be deemed to have been actually paid by the defendant company according to the payment details of the defendant's submission (Evidence No. 1)] in addition to KRW 3,034,320,000 for the contract amount of this case, the defendant company may claim compensation against the plaintiff. The defendant company's assertion of the defendant company has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the additional construction cost of KRW 253,230,511 (the additional construction cost of KRW 325,230,000 for the quality management cost of KRW 72,747,00 for the bill issued by D after deducting the discount amount of KRW 60,000 for the bill issued by D between the defendant company and the company.

"Witness 5, 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance" means the witness of the court of first instance as follows. From 6, 5, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant company claimed KRW 325,230,51 at the time of filing the counterclaim of this case as additional construction costs, but the defendant company claimed KRW 325,230,51 at the time of filing the counterclaim of this case as additional construction costs, and the remaining KRW 253,230,511 after deducting KRW 72,000 for quality control expenses that the defendant company cannot be deemed to have actually spent at the trial.