1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant (the trade name at the time of its establishment was “M”) entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Gelim General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yelim General Construction”) for the construction of the instant apartment, etc. as the project proprietor of the instant apartment, etc. (hereinafter “instant project”).

Since then, the comprehensive afforestation construction was carried out in the construction of the instant apartment, etc., and waived the construction on December 19, 2005, and the Defendant agreed to the construction amount of KRW 500,000,000 between the comprehensive afforestation construction and the pre-construction of the instant apartment.

B. On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the remaining construction works, among the new construction works of the instant apartment, etc., for which the comprehensive afforestation construction was not completed (hereinafter “instant construction works”) as indicated in the following table, with the Defendant to supply and demand and implement the instant construction works.

On January 9, 2006 and October 31 of the same year, the terms and conditions of the contract were modified as follows.

Until the expiration date of November 29, 2006 on October 31, 2006, 2006, the construction cost of KRW 9.544,4.5 million on March 30, 2007, KRW 9.1777,73 million on the yearly ground of KRW 9.165,300,000 per annum, the reduction condition for the reduction of KRW 4888,000,000 per annum for the construction of the increased special forest, the reduction of KRW 500,000 per annum 9.17,730,000,000,00 in cash, KRW 50,000,00 for each substitute, and KRW 70,00 for the remainder as part of the apartment complex of this case.

C. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff, subject to a resolution of the board of directors, on the premise that the Defendant would obtain a loan for the instant business from Hong-Profit Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “The Red-Income Savings Bank”), was designated by the Red-Income Savings Bank or the said Bank, in the event that the Defendant, as the contractor of the instant construction, is unable to perform its loan obligations and guaranteed obligations against the Hong-Profit Savings Bank, the Plaintiff’s superficies and lien on the instant construction.