1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts below the determination as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 6.

① On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant (i.e., Taesung Construction Co., Ltd.) to pay sewage to construction cost of KRW 160 million (including value-added tax) among the new construction works of apartment houses and neighborhood living facilities in Yangsan-si.

② On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 86 million, including KRW 16 million, KRW 25 million on September 23, 2015, KRW 20 million on October 29, 2015, and KRW 86 million on January 11, 2016.

③ The Plaintiff completed construction works under the instant construction contract, excluding the part partially non-construction, and the construction cost for the said non-construction portion is KRW 9,130,000.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 64.87 million (=total construction cost of KRW 160 million - the construction cost of KRW 86 million - the non-construction cost of KRW 9.13 million).

2. The defendant's assertion argues that all of the plaintiff and the construction cost were settled.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the entry of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 9.

① In concluding the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction price by settling accounts as additional loans or substitute within 15 days after completion in relation to the payment of construction price under special conditions.

② On January 8, 2016, the Defendant agreed to transfer from the Plaintiff and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 6487,00,000 to the substitute and settle claims and obligations related to the construction cost. On the same day, the Plaintiff drafted a letter of non-payment of the above contents to the Defendant.

The above recognition facts.