1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant decided to newly build a neighborhood living facility on the land outside Busan Jung-gu and one parcel.

(hereinafter referred to as the "new construction works of the above neighborhood living facilities". B.

On February 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of and demand for household facilities construction (including value-added tax) as the contract price of KRW 410 million among the instant new construction works.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received a contract amount of KRW 943 billion (including value-added tax) from the instant new construction works, in addition to the household installation works (civil engineering works).

The Defendant paid only KRW 1.29 billion out of the total construction cost of KRW 1.35 billion (= KRW 410 million) (= KRW 943 billion). As such, the unpaid construction cost is KRW 1.44 billion (= KRW 1.353 billion - KRW 1.29 billion).

The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly tax of KRW 500,000, and the term of lease from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 to use the E-building F heading in Busan, which is owned by the Defendant, as the construction site office, to the Defendant. After completing the construction, the Plaintiff delivered the lease deposit to the Defendant on June 30, 2016.

On February 2, 2015, the relocation of household installation works (civil engineering works) and steel reinforced concrete construction works, the Plaintiff removed existing structures installed in the Defendant’s building, and paid a total of KRW 17,841,200 at that expense.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 166,841,200 (i.e., the cost of removal of the structure at KRW 144,400,000,000,000 for the unpaid construction payment of KRW 17,841,200) and damages for delay.

3. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept, and the reasons are as follows.

With respect to the unpaid construction cost, the Plaintiff’s assertion is during the new construction of this case to the Defendant.