1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2015, the Intervenor B, C, and the Defendant entered into a construction contract with respect to newly built multi-household housing construction in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

B. The main contents of the Construction Subcontract Contract concluded on June 27, 2015 between the Defendant of the Construction Subcontract Contract and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Construction Contract”) are as follows.

1) Construction site: The construction period of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D2: the agreed amount from June 27, 2015 to October 23, 2015: 259,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) for materials: all materials necessary for the performance of this construction shall be included in the total amount.

5) Compensation for delay and warranty: 0.1% of the agreed amount. (c) The Plaintiff’s completion of the construction work shall have commenced on June 25, 2015 and delivered new buildings to the Defendant after completion of the construction work. The Intervenor’s Intervenor obtained approval for use of the new building on February 29, 2016. [Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Party B’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 13 (which has a number of numbers).

(1) In the absence of any special indication

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay the payable amount out of the construction price under the instant construction contract.

In the process of performing the instant construction project, the Plaintiff agreed to separately determine the cost of removing the existing building in the instant construction site to KRW 12,00,000,000, and agreed to pay the increased construction cost to KRW 22,000,000 due to the increase in the actual cost of removal due to a neighboring civil petition, etc.

In fact, the Defendant, who was not the Plaintiff, issued an electronic tax invoice that was supplied by the Defendant, is entitled to refund the value-added tax which is ultimately caused by the Defendant.