1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the Gangnam-gu Seoul 1st Ground D D D D (hereinafter “the instant construction”) refer to the instant construction.

) The construction contract of this case (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) was concluded by setting the construction cost of KRW 231,00,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from July 23, 2014 to August 30, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, and received KRW 231,00,000 from the Defendant, respectively, for each transfer of KRW 69,30,000 on July 30, 2014, and KRW 92,40,000 on August 11, 2014, and KRW 69,30,000 on October 21, 2014 under the said contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was requested by the Defendant to perform the instant construction work, and around September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a detailed statement of the additional construction work to the Defendant, and thereafter, he/she entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant on the execution of construction work cost of KRW 36,70,000 based on the said detailed statement (hereinafter “instant additional construction contract”), and completed all construction works under the said additional construction contract.

However, the Defendant merely pays the construction cost under the instant construction contract, but does not pay the construction cost under the said additional construction contract. Thus, the Defendant seeks payment of the said additional construction cost against the Defendant.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant did not conclude the instant additional construction contract with the Plaintiff, and only received the repair work by requesting the repair work without an agreement on the payment of additional construction costs for the part of the omission or defects in the existing construction work. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant additional construction contract, which is premised on the payment of additional construction costs, was concluded.

Also, it is premised on the defendant's payment of additional construction cost.