1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.

2...

In light of the fact that an extension of the period of service was recognized through the design modification contract for 90 days, 30% of the loss rate originally agreed in the re-subcontract of this case was presumed to have been premised on the fact that the period of service is less than 6 months, and as the period of service extended to 90 days without the original and the Defendant’s responsibility during the initial construction period, 50% of the loss rate is more than 6 months and less than 1 year, it is reasonable to deem that the loss rate is applied.

In calculating the unit price of 30% of the total damages originally agreed upon at the construction site of this case by the Plaintiff, additional 20% of the unit price shall be as follows.

The unit price of product contract (30%) additional unit price (20%) (20%) volume (20%) (20%) (on December 8, 2014 submitted by the Plaintiff, as shown in attached Table 3, attached Table 3, attached to the preparatory brief, H-300*300*10*10*15 280,00 won (280,000* 20/30) 186,67 won (280/30) 149.648, submitted by the Plaintiff on December 8, 2014, the lower part “30*300*100 tons)” is deemed destroyed (see attached Table 2, attached to the briefs submitted by the Plaintiff on December 8, 14, 2014). Thus, the amount of damages shall be calculated except for those listed in attached Table 3.

27,934,343 Won H-300*200*200*14 200,000 Won 133,333 Won (200,00* 20/30) 316.36.42,178,028 Won totaling 465.984.70,112,371 won

C. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,112,371, and the delay damages for the amount of KRW 70,112,371, which have been increased.

3. Determination on the claim for damages caused by the destruction of steel

A. Before the Plaintiff’s assertion was recovered from steel in the construction site of this case, the Defendant’s theory of concrete was partially destroyed, and the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 2,470,00,00, which led to the Plaintiff’s loss of KRW 2,470,000. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,470,000 as compensation for damages.

(b) Determination of Gap evidence 2-1, 7, 3-1, 9, 5-1 to 4, 12-3-3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, and 16-1 to 3, respectively; and