1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is running the interior fishery in the name of “E” in the Gu and Si of America, and the Defendants are operating the “G kindergarten” in the Gu and Si of America with women.

B. Around December 2015, the Plaintiff discussed the Defendants and the G Kindergarten Remodeling Corporation. At the first time, the construction work was intended to be executed with the budget of KRW 15 million, and the construction work cost was set at KRW 40 million, as the construction work cost increased.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). C.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants set the construction period from January 2, 2016 to January 17, 2016, and the Plaintiff completed the construction work in February 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). [Grounds for recognition] The instant construction project] does not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B demanded additional construction for the part that did not contract for construction work, and Defendant C ordered the construction work as it is and ordered to pay all the additional part of the construction work.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff additional construction cost of KRW 43,940,00 and damages for delay.

Preliminaryly, in the absence of the additional construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the additional construction cost without any legal cause.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 43,940,000 won and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a contract for construction works for which the total construction cost was determined by the relevant law, the contractor does not have a duty to pay the contractor the amount exceeding the original construction cost as the construction cost, unless there are special circumstances. However, if the contractor had an additional construction work not under the original contract, there is only room for paying additional construction cost

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63870, Apr. 27, 2006). Furthermore, any part of the construction work is originally intended.