1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2010, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) awarded a contract for ridge Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ndo Construction”) for the instant construction project and two lots of ground D (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the Jeju Island Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NDo Construction”), but the ridge Construction performed only the structural construction and partial plant construction and suspended construction.

B. On October 25, 2012, B entered into the instant construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Gu Phee Construction Co., Ltd. (the name of the Defendant and the company of the company of the same person) with the construction cost of KRW 3,540,000,000 for the instant construction project interrupted, and the construction period of KRW 3,540,000 for the construction cost of the instant construction project was three months from the date of commencement of the construction

C. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) acquired the contractual status of the former Dhee Construction Co., Ltd.; (b) agreed to increase B and the construction cost as KRW 4.85 billion; and (c) extended the payment of penalty and the construction period when both parties delay.

Around February 28, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the Oryang Electricity Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Oyang Electricity Co., Ltd.”) with respect to electrical construction of the instant construction (hereinafter “electric construction”) from March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013, and with the construction cost of KRW 330,000,000. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for each change of the construction period from March 1, 2013 to July 30, 2013, with the construction cost of KRW 398,200,000, respectively. However, the Oyang Electricity Co., Ltd. did not complete electrical construction and suspended construction works on September 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In the first place of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to settle the construction cost at the actual cost, and did not receive KRW 96,208,252 of the construction cost. Thus, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.