1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of dismissal and dismissal 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.

(A) The Majority Opinion argues that “1.5/metres” in the first instance judgment is “1.5t/metres,” and that “1.5t/metres,” in the third instance judgment, shall be deemed “1.5t/metres.”

2. The following is added after the 10th 14th 2th 14th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the special terms and conditions of the instant contract (Article 2, 3, and 6) of this case are null and void because they lose fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, or they have considerably lost fairness (Article 6 of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act).

However, the above special condition is established by mutual agreement, taking into account the characteristics of the contract at the time of signing the contract in this case, and thus cannot be deemed to fall under the "Terms and Conditions" subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and there is no evidence to deem that the above provisions were determined due to the party's old age, rash, experience, or significantly lose fairness. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

The following matters shall be added after 10 pages 18 of the first instance judgment:

Meanwhile, even if the contract of this case is not a quantitative sale and purchase, it shall be interpreted that there exists an agreement to settle the difference in the purchase price when at least the actual quantity is significantly deficient than the expected quantity, and when the actual quantity exceeds the reasonable range of error, in accordance with the principle of interpreting intent as to legal acts, it shall be interpreted that there has been an agreement to settle the difference in the purchase price. Since the shortage in dredging soil of this case exceeds the reasonable range of error from 124,978