1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for each of the following construction works (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”) with the Defendant and Seoul subway 1-4 line convenience facilities (stage 1), 15, 16, and 17 sections (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”).

The scheduled date for completion of the divided contract price (the original date for completion of the contract) shall be December 31, 201, 15 construction sections 1,155,854,470, and December 16, 201, 894,729,750, and January 12, 201, of January 17, 201, 15 construction sections 1,130,406,450, and January 6, 2012.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract under which each of the instant contracts was modified as follows (hereinafter “instant modified contract”).

The 15th and 15th before the date of completion of the divided contract date, the date of completion of the 15th and 15th following December 23, 201: (a) the date of completion of the 15th and 15th following the date of completion of the contract; (b) the delay of authorization and permission, 854, 470 and obstacles; and (c) December 14, 2013 of the 2nd change, December 14, 2013; (d) the delay of authorization and permission, 15,854, 470 obstacles to the 16th and 16th 16th 20, Jan. 2, 2012; (e) the delay of authorization and permission and the 16th 3th 16th 205th 20, Dec. 31, 2012; (e) the delay of authorization and permission or the 20th 13th 2014th 27. 2948th 2013th 208th 201.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written agreement with regard to each of the instant construction works, “the extension of the construction period without modification of the contract amount,” and at the time of concluding the instant second modification contract, drafted a written agreement stating “the extension of the construction period without modification of the contract amount.”

On February 2, 2013 and April 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend each of the respective construction periods of this case to reflect the increase in indirect costs and to reflect the increase in indirect costs. However, on June 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit upon the Defendant’s refusal of a request for indirect costs increase.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute.