1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 7,850,000,000,000 among the construction works for new construction of the 2nd Newannan Ships's Winter, Pakistan-dong.

B. During the process of the above construction, the plaintiff agreed to reduce the above construction cost of KRW 7.73 billion, and the plaintiff agreed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 7.3 billion, and the plaintiff was also the plaintiff's construction work of the rooftop tower which the plaintiff did not receive a contract by the agreement of the defendant (hereinafter "the additional construction work of this case").

C. A construction subcontract modification contract (hereinafter “instant modification contract”) was prepared on February 11, 2010, where the Plaintiff, including the instant additional construction work, completed the contracted construction work, and between the Defendant, to reduce the construction cost to KRW 7.51 billion.5 billion. The said contract is written that the price for the instant additional construction work is KRW 7,06,898.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 9-1 to No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows that the defendant should pay KRW 51,516,953 calculated by subtracting KRW 7,066,898 paid from KRW 58,583,851 of the instant additional construction cost, and the defendant asserts that the instant additional construction cost was all included in the instant modified contract and settled.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case contains the details of the instant additional construction, and that the signature and seal was affixed to the contract of this case, which did not settle the accounts of the instant additional construction.

The modified contract of this case is a disposal document, and the disposal document is presumed to have been declared in accordance with its stated intent, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone contains the contents of the instant modified contract, but it is insufficient to recognize that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the settlement of the price of the instant Additional Construction.