1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a basic subcontract agreement with the Defendant to manufacture and supply goods ordered by the Plaintiff. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant to implement the subcontract by concluding the “individual contract” with the name of construction, construction details, quantity, payment period, the scope of materials supplied, method of payment, contract amount and payment method, and other terms and conditions of the order, and on the same day, the Plaintiff agreed to adjust 5% of the unit price in 2017 between the Defendant and the Defendant for the adjustment of 5% of the unit price in the year of 2017 due to changes in the shipbuilding competition and the deteriorating environment.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

The Defendant entered into an individual contract between the Plaintiff, and entered into a shipbuilding block with chain lin, anchorer, anchorer, etc. (bolter and chain lock), and paid a total of KRW 969,649,000 for the subcontract price from February 5, 2016 to May 15, 2017.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, from January 1, 2016 to March 2, 2018, the design revision process was amended, the grain work from the bening process, the modification work from design errors, protruding cutting and awarding work, etc., and sought payment of the total construction cost of KRW 155,868,00.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the additional construction work as alleged by the Plaintiff only with the descriptions of the Gaba, Gap 2-3, 4, and 11 (including the paper numbers).

Even if the plaintiff performed the above additional construction work, according to the above basic facts, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to set up 5% of the unit price determined by specifying the construction work through the individual contract at the time of the contract of this case, and agreed to adjust the unit price.