2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff (contractor) entered into a subcontract with the Defendant (contractor) by setting the construction period of the incidental civil engineering works among the construction works for the construction works of the instant construction works of the Hancheon Middle School Teachers (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from November 30, 201 to January 30, 201, with regard to the construction cost and KRW 165 million (excluding value-added tax).

B. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract modification agreement with the Defendant that changes the construction period from November 30, 2010 to February 28, 201, on the ground that “the extension of the construction period following design modifications and the increase of the construction amount” with respect to the instant construction work, to KRW 168,932,50 of the construction amount (excluding value-added tax).

C. On March 30, 2011, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff on the final settlement of the instant construction cost as KRW 185,825,750 (including value-added tax).

[Recognition of Fact] without dispute; entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2; entry of Eul evidence 5; purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a final settlement agreement with the Defendant to the effect that no lawsuit is brought in the future while settling the construction cost for the instant construction project at KRW 185,825,750.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it violates the above subordinate statute.

B. According to the final settlement agreement (Evidence B, No. 5), it is recognized that the agreement to settle the instant construction cost (including value-added tax) as KRW 185,825,750 (including the period of construction from November 30, 201 to February 28, 201) is written on the following: “The Plaintiff, after the said agreement, has no obligation or obligation related to the instant construction project, and promises not to raise any objection against the civil and criminal damages.”

However, the Plaintiff sought the construction cost for the instant suit that was not paid out of the aforementioned settlement amount and that was additionally paid after February 28, 2011.