All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the revocation of confession on the grounds that the contract amount for the construction of B-Public investment project (hereinafter “instant machinery”) contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) was 4,160,000,000 under the modified contract on May 30, 2009, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s legal representative stated as a fact that there was no dispute between the two parties on the date of the second pleading of the first instance trial, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above determination and measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exercise of the right to ask for clarification and revocation of confession.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant consistently agreed to install three post-presidential meters from the date of the first contract on October 22, 2007, with respect to the instant facility works, from the point of time to October 22, 2007.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on its reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.