1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running an information and communications construction business in the trade name called “B” (the actual representative is the husband C), and the Defendant is a company running an information and communications construction business.

B. 1) Tart Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tart Construction”) (hereinafter “Tart Construction”)

(1) On September 10, 2012, the National Armed Forces Administration (hereinafter “the instant construction”) was selected as a contractor for the construction of new facilities on the ground of Yongsan-gu Seoul and 28 lots, which was ordered by the National Armed Forces Finance Administration around July 2012, and at the time of winning the contract, the Ulsan Construction was at the time of winning the contract, the Communications Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(3),400,000,000 won (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the construction work set at

(2) Ulsan Construction attempted to subcontract the original construction to the Defendant, and the Defendant failed to meet the qualification requirements (scale, performance records, credit rating, etc. of the company) necessary to undertake the instant construction, making it difficult to conclude the contract difficult.

Accordingly, the Defendant, under the name of the Purscom Co., Ltd., which was traded with the Defendant (hereinafter “Purscom”), was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction, and the Purscom also agreed to accept a loan under the name of the Purscom.

3) On the other hand, the Ulsan Construction Department of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is a unit for the use of a facility, (hereinafter “user unit”).

In consultation with the U.S. military, the employer’s unit, in order to link the construction work with the U.S. military units, required that the U.S. unit install equipment at a high-priced U.S. network than domestic equipment anticipated at the time of the tender for the construction work, and increased the AV equipment quantity. Accordingly, the Ulsan Construction requested the ordering unit to secure the budget later and increase the construction cost, and on this premise, made a shop design drawing by reflecting the demand of the user unit on January 15, 2013. (c) The Defendant’s construction based on the content reflected in the shop design drawings.