1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

On November 26, 201, the Defendant’s Intervenor entered into a contract with the Defendant on November 26, 201 with respect to “the construction of an officetel in Daegu North-gu Ctel” in order to newly construct an officetel on the land outside Daegu North-gu B and three parcels.

Around that time, the Defendant subcontracted the civil engineering work among the above new construction work, which was contracted, to Estop Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Estop”).

B. Esto re-subcontract the Plaintiff with the cost of construction KRW 702,900,000, and the construction period from March 26, 2013 to September 25, 2013, among the above civil works subcontracted on March 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On September 10, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay directly to the Plaintiff KRW 475,90,000 out of the construction cost of the instant contract of KRW 702,90,000.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 continued the construction work on May 2013 to June 2013, the construction work was suspended, the construction work was not paid at the time during the construction work of the instant case.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, and the U.S. case renounced the contracted civil works, and instead, the Defendant agreed to directly operate the civil works and pay the unpaid construction cost to the Plaintiff. In particular, the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the entire construction cost if the instant construction works were maintained until the completion of the civil works.

However, since the civil engineering works directly operated by the defendant were delayed for more than nine months than the period stipulated in the contract in this case, and accordingly, the construction cost in this case was additionally incurred, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the construction cost increased according to the delay of the construction work in accordance with the payment agreement.