1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 6, 2016, E running the Plaintiff’s supply and demand of construction (1) ordered the Defendant to undertake the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On July 7, 2016, the instant building was approved for use on the same year.

7. 18. The registration of initial ownership has been completed.

B. The Defendants’ status E died on January 23, 2017.

Defendant B, Defendant C, who is his wife, became his wife, and C and D became his wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a contract for the instant construction project to KRW 1122 million (including value-added tax).

After that, it is the amount claimed by the plaintiff from the warden as additional construction cost at the request of E.

Although there was a provision that additional construction cost is KRW 124,680,909 (excluding value-added tax) in the briefs dated January 16, 2018, the purport of the claim has not been modified, it is deemed that the Defendants’ assertion on additional construction cost claimed has been maintained.

The Additional Construction was made.

E paid the construction cost of KRW 1 billion, KRW 42.44 billion, and the remainder of KRW 189.56 million (= KRW 1.122 billion - KRW 11.1 billion - KRW 1 billion - KRW 1.042.44 billion).

The Defendants are the inheritors of E, who are obligated to pay the said unpaid construction price according to their shares in inheritance.

B. (1) According to the evidence No. 1 written by Gap, who has been awarded a contract for the instant construction project in KRW 1.122 billion, it can be acknowledged that E and the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the construction cost of KRW 1.122 million. However, since the plaintiff himself/herself recognized that this contract is the so-called "business contract", it is insufficient to recognize that the construction contract was concluded at that amount.

According to the purport of the other construction contract (Evidence 1) written on the same day as the above contract and the entire pleadings, E shall be assessed against the Plaintiff with value added tax of KRW 935 million.