The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

The reasons for our court's explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, which is the same as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, inasmuch as Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "840,673,118 won" of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deemed as "825,670,118 won or more," and the method of calculating the amount of the additional subcontract work shall be at least 825,670,118 won" of the judgment of the second and third instances. However, the payment rate of the Plaintiff's claim against the party to the method of calculating the amount of the additional subcontract work shall be 67% of the price of the original subcontracted work in Gangnam-si (hereinafter referred to as "cost of the original construction"). However, the subsequent method of construction shall

In order to calculate the cost of construction, value-added tax shall be deducted from the construction cost received by the defendant in Gangnam-si (the agreement to refund to the amount of tax invoice submitted by the plaintiff after deduction), industrial accident compensation insurance, and employment insurance shall be borne by the defendant, so it shall not be deducted.

The defendant's assertion that 67% of the amount of value-added tax, industrial accident compensation insurance fee, and employment insurance premium should be paid to the plaintiff as the subcontract price, but if the contract price increases as a result of the change of design, it is agreed to calculate the subcontract price by applying 77% instead of 67% as the subcontract price.

Judgment

Where the cost of construction increases, 7% shall be applied to the total cost of construction as well as the increased amount of construction, and the fact that various social premiums other than value-added tax are agreed not to deduct shall be attested by the Plaintiff seeking the payment of subcontract construction cost, but there is no evidence to prove it, such as the contract

Rather, the Plaintiff’s testimony of the first instance court witness D exceeds the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in the evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 10-3, and the whole purport of the pleading.