1. Of the part concerning the principal claim of the judgment of the court of first instance, the payment order is the following.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows 2 Ga, 6 10 to 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the Do table is excluded from the parallel number), 6 Ga 12 and 13 Ga 13 Ga Ga Ga Ga e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e.

2. The changed part

A. On 5th to 15th judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff continuously demanded design modification after the conclusion of the instant construction contract. Accordingly, the Defendant continued to perform additional construction works of KRW 100,902,963 compared to the quotation attached to the initial construction contract (Evidence 1-1).

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the remainder of KRW 130,993,259 (i.e., KRW 250,00,000 for additional construction cost of KRW 100,902,963 for value added tax of KRW 35,090 for value added tax of KRW 35,00 for value added tax of KRW 10,90 for the previous construction cost) minus the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,00 for the remainder of the construction cost, and damages for delay.

B. Part 7 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance (4), (5) The plaintiff and the defendant presumed to have written the agreement of this case to modify the construction contents based on the evidence No. 7, settle the construction cost, etc.

C. As seen earlier, the remaining portion of the construction cost up to the date of settlement of 2 pages 2 through 9 pages 8, 2 and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is based on the date of settlement.