1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 25, 2006, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant for the interior works of the Dental care hospital owned by the Defendant in Busan-gun C.

2. Determination on the assertion of the cause of the instant claim

A. (1) The part on the claim for construction cost (1) where the Plaintiff’s assertion included value-added tax, KRW 275,000,000, which was paid only KRW 230,000,000. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the construction cost unpaid to the Plaintiff.

(2) (A) Determination (A) As to the construction cost and balance of the instant case, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2-4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, and the instant construction cost can be acknowledged as constituting 275,000,000 won including value added tax, and the Defendant can find the fact that he paid KRW 241,50,000 as the instant construction cost by September 26, 2008. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 23,50,000 and its delay damages.

(B) On the ground of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim for construction payment has expired by prescription.

Therefore, the claim for the construction cost of this case is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the time when the last repayment was made by the Defendant with respect to the claim of this case is September 26, 2008 as seen above. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on September 4, 2013, which had much more than three years than that of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished by extinctive prescription.

The defendant's defense is justified.

As to this, the plaintiff asserted that if the defendant agreed to pay the construction cost before the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff would waive the benefit of extinctive prescription. However, it is rejected as there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the defendant's assertion.

(3) Sub-decisions.