1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the B Office building to the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the part of "the scope of damage" from Part 7 to Part 15 of Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case changed as stated in the "Seute". Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

B. 1) The amount of damages suffered by the Defendant due to the cancellation of the instant subcontract may be calculated by deducting the contract amount under the instant subcontract from the total amount of the construction expenses incurred by the Defendant for the instant construction works. 2) The Defendant paid the Plaintiff for the instant construction works, ② the construction expenses paid directly to the Plaintiff, ③ the construction expenses paid directly by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor, and ③ the construction expenses paid directly by the Plaintiff after the cancellation of the instant subcontract. As for the instant construction, the Defendant received additional construction expenses from new solar construction: (1) the total construction expenses paid by the Defendant for the instant construction; and (2) the fact that the construction expenses paid directly by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are calculated by the No.S. method; and (2) there is no dispute between the parties.

C) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s direct payment of the construction cost (1) paid by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor is KRW 295,967,080 in total. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 295,967,080 to the subcontractor with the Defendant’s obligation to pay. However, the Plaintiff asserts that a significant portion of it is merely the construction cost paid by the Defendant for its own construction, and it is unreasonable to include it in the amount of the construction cost paid by the Defendant (2).