1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

A. The Defendant is a company running construction business, etc.

On October 5, 2015, the Defendant entered into a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 66,00,000 (including surtax) with the Plaintiff on the electrical construction part of the said construction work (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”) with the lender enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the “large-si enterprise”) when the Defendant could receive a contract for the new construction of a lot of ground factory and neighborhood living facilities outside A and three parcels of land from Kimpo-si.

On March 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a modified contract on the instant construction contract (hereinafter “instant modified contract”) as follows.

5. Contract amount: 9,00,000 won (including value added tax) 13. Other matters: conditions that are liable for any construction work as contained on the survey and on the schedule and that are not recognized by the ordering office as a responsible for the execution of any construction work, and that are liable for any objection raised at the ordering office to the work in question as a condition precedent that is not recognized by the ordering office; * an addition at the end of time shall be 20,000,000.

Although the Plaintiff completed the construction under the instant modified contract, the lender company recognized only the portion equivalent to KRW 9,400,000 for the construction cost during the construction work added under the instant modified contract, and the Defendant calculated the additional construction cost under the instant modified contract as KRW 22,00,000 (including additional tax) and paid to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and plaintiff's assertion on the purport of the entire argument that "the addition of time limits shall be KRW 20,000,000," while entering into the amendment contract of this case was due to an imminent circumstance that the plaintiff could not refuse the request of the contractor as the subcontractor. Thus, the plaintiff's declaration of intention is revoked by the delivery of the statement of grounds of appeal of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is out of KRW 99,000,000 for construction cost under the instant modified contract to the Plaintiff.