1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff received a supply of and demand for the Postnatal Care Center E (the construction cost of KRW 968,00,000, and the construction period of August 3, 2012) from the Defendant-affiliated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the three to four floors of D Building in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On September 4, 2012, the construction period was extended and the increase in the construction cost was changed, and the construction period was revised from June 1, 2012 to October 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant on November 11, 2012 upon the Defendant’s request for additional construction, and the price was set at KRW 60,390,000 (including value-added tax).

On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff started additional construction and completed additional construction on December 11, 2012.

The defendant is obligated to pay the additional construction contract price to the plaintiff.

B. The testimony of the witness F (the head of the Plaintiff’s construction team) who seems to be consistent with the judgment whether the Plaintiff entered into an additional construction contract with the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the testimony of the witness F (the head of the Plaintiff’s construction team).

In addition, as to whether the Plaintiff’s construction work performed from November 12, 2012 to December 11, 2012 constitutes a construction work under the instant construction contract or its defect repair, not an additional construction work, the health team, and the witness F’s testimony corresponding thereto is difficult to believe with a hot view, and it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s testimony only by the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if there is a content that constitutes an additional construction separately from the instant construction project during the construction implemented by the Plaintiff, the title thereof shall be claimed to the Defendant.