The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 183,700,000 for the construction cost of the new construction works of a military E zone neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

(A) In addition to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay KRW 61,930,000 for the additional construction work, and the total construction work amount is KRW 245,630,00. The Defendant paid KRW 159,760,000, and paid KRW 25,000 after the instant lawsuit was filed. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction work amount to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff incurred additional construction works due to the occurrence of the instant subcontracted works.

However, there is a dispute as to whether there was a conclusive agreement with the defendant on the additional construction cost. Unlike the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant only decided to settle the additional construction cost later, and there was no conclusive agreement on it.

In reviewing evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that Gap evidence No. 2 submitted by the plaintiff as evidence is merely a quotation prepared by the plaintiff and there was a conclusive agreement on the additional construction cost as alleged by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was an agreement to pay the construction cost of KRW 61,930,000 for the additional construction works as alleged by the Plaintiff.

On February 7, 2018, the Defendant: (a) determined the remaining construction cost for the subcontracted works in this case, which the Plaintiff contracted from the Defendant; and (b) the G store construction works, such as Changjin-gu, Seoul; (c) paid 25,000,000 won on the same day; and (d) withdrawn the Defendant’s application for provisional attachment against the Defendant’s claim; and (c) as the repair cycle, the Plaintiff did not comply with the defect repair; and (d) made the remainder of the subcontract construction due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the defect repair.