The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence was duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following 7 expert witnesses shall be appointed under the fifth Table of the judgment of the court of first instance as "experts of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "experts").

B. According to the fifth attached Table of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the result of each request for the supplementation and supplementation of expert evidence E” shall be “the result of each request for the supplementation and supplementation of expert evidence E of the court of first instance.”

C. 10 to 14 vehicles below the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cut down as follows.

The additional indirect construction cost incurred during the construction period extended due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff (from May 25, 2017 to July 26, 2017) is KRW 44,630,295, and the part concerning reinforced concrete construction subcontracted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, which was KRW 7,504,156. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 106,96,839 out of the aforementioned additional construction cost (=62,36,544 out of the directly owned construction cost) and damages for delay.

D. The June 19th of the judgment of the first instance is to delete “137 days in the case of the second multiple contracts,” and “137 days in the case of the second multiple contracts.”

E. The 7th to 5th of the first instance judgment stated “the construction period of the second and third water contract without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff” to “the third water contract construction period without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff.”

F. The 8th instance judgment of the first instance court deleted “determination as to the assertion of unjust enrichment” in the 8th instance judgment.

G. The 8th judgment of the court of first instance and the 9th judgment “1” deleted.

H. From 14th to 21th day of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.

I. 9-3-4 of the judgment of the court of first instance.