1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts are acknowledged as follows: (a) around November 20, 2012, the Defendant received a contract from the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. for telecommunications construction works among the Daegu Suwon-gu B apartment new construction works; (b) around March 12, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the Plaintiff in the amount of KRW 1,50,000,000 for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant contract”); (c) the fact that the Plaintiff completed the cable construction works for underground parking lots in the relevant communications construction site is not disputed between the parties; or (d) the fact that the Plaintiff completed the construction works for underground parking lots in the said communications construction site is not in dispute between the parties concerned; or (e) comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraph

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff claimed that the construction cost was paid to the Defendant by KRW 1,222,363,96, and KRW 65,694,524 of the cable construction cost for underground parking lots divided therefrom. The Defendant agreed to determine the contract price as KRW 1,050,000,000, and that the remainder of the additional construction cost and the cable construction cost for underground parking lots should be settled and paid later. Thus, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the cable construction cost for underground parking lots and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination Nos. 4, 7, and 12 to 14 were the statements and images of evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 12, and testimony of witness C and D were damaged, but the contract of this case was concluded after the shooting of the above underground parking lot cables, and there were details of the cable construction cost of underground parking lots prepared by the plaintiff, but the defendant

It does not appear that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have expressed their intent to make payment, and there was an exchange of e-mail with regard to the site conditions of the underground parking lot prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, but there is no content such as subsequent settlement of construction costs, and even if it is difficult to believe the content of the confirmation document prepared by the Plaintiff’s employee and to recognize its credibility, the Defendant’s employee before the conclusion of the instant contract or