1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from the Defendant for the construction of a new house B on the ground (hereinafter “instant main construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 400,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and completed the construction on September 2012. Accordingly, on September 20, 2012, the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant was completed.

B. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 99,903,610 in the balance of the principal construction cost of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”), which was sentenced on May 19, 2015, to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,079,610, and delay damages therefor,” which was sentenced on May 19, 2015.

(A) On January 28, 2016, both appeals filed by the parties concerned, and withdrawn each appeal on January 28, 2016). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence No. 3-1, 2, and evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the enforcement of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, separately implemented additional construction works, such as the construction of walls and the installation of a retaining wall on the site boundary, etc. (hereinafter “the instant additional construction”) and additionally spent approximately KRW 68,00,00,00 for the convenience of convenience. After the Plaintiff filed a prior lawsuit against the Defendant, it clearly stated that the Plaintiff seeks payment only for the balance of the instant construction cost, while filing a prior lawsuit against the Defendant, and explicitly reserved the instant additional construction cost claim.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 68,00,000 as the additional construction cost of this case and the delay damages.

B. We find that only the statement in Gap evidence No. 4 was separate from the main construction of this case and that the plaintiff implemented the Additional construction of this case and additionally paid construction cost equivalent to KRW 68,00,000 in the process.