1. The plaintiff supplementary intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff intervenor in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The Plaintiff Intervenor, at his own discretion, partly amended the specifications for the new installation of water tanks, other than specifications for the water tank repair and construction works in the instant construction contract, and formally attached thereto. As such, the said specifications (Evidence B) cannot be applicable to the instant construction works. Therefore, the Plaintiff Intervenor’s implementation of the instant construction contract shall be determined based on the ordinary construction works for water tank repair and maintenance works.

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the specifications attached to the instant construction contract (No. 2) are related to the new installation of water tank, and even if the specifications are related to the new installation of water tank as alleged by the Plaintiff Intervenor, the following facts are acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, namely, ① the Defendant held a site site conference regarding the selection of underground water tank repair companies on November 15, 2012, and the Plaintiff Intervenor participated in the site site conference on November 15, 2012. At the time, the Defendant is full repair of the underground water tank repair company and the size and status of the underground water tank repair work and the status of the underground water tank repair work, “the floor is over 3: the floor is over 1m, and the side is 4m in width. Other news work are conducted more than 1m wide, and the inside site site is removed, and after the removal of the outer reinforcement container part, the Intervenor described the above purport as the Plaintiff 2 and the Nonparty 2, etc. in this case.