1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not receive KRW 120,000,000, out of the construction cost, in spite of having received approval from the competent authority on March 17, 2005 after completing the construction of a new building in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C ground (hereinafter "the instant construction") and delivered the above building to the defendant on March 17, 2005, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 20,000,00,000, out of the construction cost, including design cost, city gas admission cost, electricity and water supply cost, electricity and water supply cost, and balcony expansion cost.

In this regard, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost according to the work of this case upon completion of the construction work. Some of the construction cost was paid directly to the Plaintiff’s subcontractor under consultation with the Plaintiff, and completed the settlement thereof, and even if the unpaid construction cost claims remain, the above construction cost claims shall be subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years. However, the instant lawsuit was filed more than three years after the completion of the said construction work, and the extinctive prescription is complete, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

B. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove the existence of a claim for the construction cost that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant, and even if the above claim for the construction cost exists, the above claim for the construction cost falls under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act as “claim for the Construction Work of the contractor, news articles, and other persons engaged in the design or supervision of the construction.” It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost as above has arrived at the due date from the day following March 17, 2005 when the Plaintiff completed the instant construction and obtained approval for use. It is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost was filed on March 12, 2015, which was more than three years after the said lawsuit was filed. Thus, the above claim for the construction cost in question