1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, setting the period of work from May 10, 2014 to June 30, 2014, with respect to the interior repair work for Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant hanok”) located in the Defendant, with the amount of KRW 64,00,000 of the construction cost (excluding surtax).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 107,00,000,000, in total, from May 24, 2014 to February 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Based on the instant contract, the Plaintiff proceeded with 70% of the said construction works, and the Defendant suspended construction works on June 14, 2014 and again proceeded with construction works on a commercial building.

B. In relation to the above alteration work with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to treat personnel expenses, material expenses, etc. as expenses actually required, and additionally set a monthly amount of KRW 3 million as expenses for supervision and supervision to the Plaintiff.

C. From June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff carried out alteration works, such as re-breaking the existing repair works parts, and from May 9, 2014 to December 30, 2014, construction costs related to the instant construction works are KRW 150,870,920, including material expenses, personnel expenses, field expenses, etc., and the management and supervision expenses for the Plaintiff are KRW 21,00,000 for seven months, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 64,870,920 (= KRW 150,870,920) and damages for delay.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. First of all, the determination of the claim for the payment of the unpaid construction cost is that the Plaintiff performed the first 70% construction in relation to the instant construction project, and thereafter, whether the additional construction cost was incurred in the modified construction project as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as the statement and video of the evidence No. 3 to No. 68, and witness D.