1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2010, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for an additional construction contract of KRW 3.663 billion on January 17, 2012, with the price for the construction of the building C on the land outside Ulsan-gu and two parcels, Ulsan-gu, and KRW 3.85 million (the price for the construction of the new building on the land outside Ulsan-gu, and KRW 3.355 million (the price for the reduction of KRW 3.355 million on November 10, 201 but the final amount of KRW 3.63 billion on January 17, 2012 is KRW 3.63 billion), the construction period from December 27, 2010 to September 30, 2011.

B. Re-construction Co., Ltd.: (a) on June 14, 201, concluded a subcontract for the construction work during the said construction with Defendant Bohyi for the period from June 14, 201 to September 30, 201; (b) on the same day, the period from June 14, 2011 to June 14, 201, for the electrical construction work during the said construction work, was set at KRW 220,00 won and the period from June 14, 201 to September 30, 201.

C. However, on August 30, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant U.S., and KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant U.S. on August 31, 2011, separate from the price stipulated in each of the above subcontract agreements.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, subject to the condition that Defendant Dae Young-si installed pipes using a quality testing product higher than that set forth in the Tank subcontract, and installed a capacity higher than that set forth in the Tank subcontract, the Defendant Won paid the Defendants the above KRW 200 million and KRW 100 million to the Defendants as advance payment, on the condition that the Defendants perform a construction work higher than that set forth in the Tank subcontract. The Defendants asserted that they are liable to return each of the above money to the Plaintiff because they did not work differently from that set forth in each subcontract, or do not perform the said condition more defective construction work and did not fulfill each of the above conditions.

B. Each of the statements in the evidence No. 5, No. 5, and No. 3 are alone made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.