1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. On December 2017, the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for the construction of neighborhood facilities D (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the cost of construction KRW 440 million (excluding value-added tax) and the completion date of the completion of the construction project on May 8, 2018.

B. In relation to the instant construction, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform an additional construction work equivalent to KRW 38 million, and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work including the said interior work.

C. From January 3, 2017 to July 11, 2018, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 522 million in total as the price for the instant construction project (= KRW 440 million plus KRW 38 million).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The total construction cost of the instant construction, including any construction project to add the gist of the assertion, is KRW 640,000,000.

However, the remainder of the construction cost remaining after the Defendant repaid KRW 520 million and KRW 32 million to E is KRW 89.5 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 89.5 million and damages for delay.

B. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant entered into an additional construction agreement with the Defendant exceeding the additional construction work equivalent to KRW 38 million recognized by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendant entered into an agreement in excess of KRW 5220 million with respect to the instant construction work with the Plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that “The contract was concluded formally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant who lent the construction business license, and the additional construction work was carried out according to the approval of the owner of the building.” The Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.