1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 886,600,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from December 12, 2011 to October 12, 2012 with respect to “B” facilities (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). In addition to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for “G” and “H construction” from the Defendant around that time.

B. From among the instant construction projects, the Plaintiff did not perform part of the construction works included in the instant construction contract at the Defendant’s request, and added construction works as to the part not included in the instant construction contract, and was paid by the Defendant five times until October 31, 2012.

C. In relation to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff paid public charges, such as the purchase price of equipment, such as furniture purchased by the Defendant, and the electricity tax, etc., and around February 2012, the I Corporation added the I Corporation executed by the Defendant.

“B” was held from May 2012 to August 2012.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 The contents written in Gap evidence 1, 3 through 9, Eul evidence 1, D of the first instance court witness D, and witness E of the first instance court and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 383,370,000 in addition to the additional construction cost related to the instant construction project and the substitute payments related to the instant construction project, and KRW 392,270,00 in addition to KRW 8,90,000 in addition to the additional construction cost (= KRW 383,370,900 in 8,900,000) and damages for delay thereon, which were made at the Defendant’s request. 2) As to the instant construction project, the part of which the original construction contract was reduced was equivalent to KRW 308,089,513 in relation to the instant construction project.

F and E, the representative director of the plaintiff, are the On-Site Director of the defendant, shall take into account this part of the reduced amount of the construction cost already received to the defendant.