1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2009, the Support Committee for the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the period of a Japanese-Japan dispute under the Defendant’s control and for the Victims of Mobilization of Military Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “instant Committee”) entered into an agreement with the Public Procurement Service on the planning, design, contract, construction management, etc. of B construction on behalf of the Public Procurement Service, and the instant Committee entered into an agreement on services tailored to the construction of facilities with the Public Procurement Service to pay the relevant fee.

B. The Plaintiff was selected as the contractor of the telecommunications portion of the B construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) through a bid by the Public Procurement Service. Accordingly, on December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with respect to the instant construction as follows (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The name of a construction contract: 940,288,617 won: The scheduled date of completion of the construction contract on December 30, 2010: The scheduled date of completion of the construction project on December 28, 2012.

The Plaintiff started construction on December 30, 2010. However, during the construction process, the scheduled completion date was postponed on October 2, 2013 due to the Defendant’s failure to allocate the budget, and the scheduled completion date was postponed on April 30, 2014, and the scheduled completion date was postponed on April 30, 2014. The Defendant’s request for the change of the scope of construction and the delay in the pre-construction were postponed on May 15, 2014.

After completing all of the relevant construction works in accordance with the final completion plan, the Plaintiff claimed that the construction period was extended by 488 days for the first and second postponements, and that the indirect construction cost was additionally paid KRW 46,600,000 (hereinafter “instant indirect construction cost”). However, the Defendant rejected the payment thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 20, 21 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff extended the construction period on the part of the defendant's assertion.