1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 13, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Forest Management Development Co., Ltd. to subcontract construction cost of KRW 916,350,000 (excluding value-added tax; KRW 1,007,985,00 if value-added tax is included) to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction subcontracted by the Defendant.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while performing the instant construction work, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said amount as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to receive KRW 150,029,00,00, as it additionally claimed that the Plaintiff had a claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 1,108,185,001 against the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that there was no additional construction work in addition to the construction work in this case, and that the construction work in this case was fully paid.

B. (1) First, with respect to the Plaintiff’s additional construction of earth and sand other than the instant construction, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s additional construction by only the descriptions in subparagraphs 3-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Furthermore, as to the balance of the instant construction cost, the facts that the instant construction cost was KRW 1,07,985,00 are acknowledged as seen earlier, but in addition to the entries of KRW 1,07,985,00 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap’s testimony, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant construction cost was either directly paid to the Plaintiff or paid to the Plaintiff’s subcontractor in accordance with the direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff during the period from May 4, 2012 to September 5, 2014, and that the said recognition was insufficient and there was no counter-proof otherwise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .