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

A. On March 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the Danpo-si Mapo-si Mapo-si Mapo-si (value-added Tax Separate); (b) completed all construction works including the additional construction works on April 201; (c) the Defendant was not paid the total of KRW 188,347,50 and KRW 86,395,95,950 in addition to the principal construction cost; and (d) the Defendant was not paid the amount of KRW 274,743,450 in total of KRW 274,743,450, and delay damages.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had engaged in the primary construction work equivalent to KRW 188,347,500 in addition to the principal construction work before completion, solely on the written evidence No. 2 of the judgment on the claim for the primary construction cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the appraisal by appraiser A, the plaintiff and the defendant do not specify the construction cost when entering into an oral contract on or around March 201, but rather set the construction cost as KRW 1 billion by negotiation upon presenting to the defendant a statement of accounts for the construction cost of KRW 1,194,545,455 (Evidence No. 1) during the construction process. It is recognized that the plaintiff's primary additional construction project claimed by the plaintiff is not an additional construction project for which the defendant can claim the payment separately from this project, but it is recognized as a part of this project that was made after setting the construction cost of KRW 1 billion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the first additional construction cost is without merit.

C. After completion, the Plaintiff, under the agreement with the Defendant, performed additional construction works, such as installation of Saturdays 1st floor stores, shelters, and external ticketing stations, and the fact that the construction cost for the relevant additional construction is 56,105,000, when the judgment on the claim for the second additional construction cost and the purport of the entire argument as a result of appraiser A’s appraisal.

Part of the secondary additional construction claimed by the Plaintiff exceeds the above recognition scope.