1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts as follows.

As the defendant's order, the plaintiff implemented the A hotel 2nd floor and the 9th guest room repair work.

The plaintiff constructed the floor of the guest room with the 9th floor among the above construction works with the lutrote string.

Although the Defendant did not make any error in the construction of the Plaintiff’s above substitute, the Defendant removed the above substitute site by demanding reconstruction, and subsequently reconstructed it as the date the Defendant demanded reconstruction.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the construction cost of KRW 195,800,000 added by reconstruction as above, and the delay damages therefor.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on October 25, 2013 for the implementation of the above construction by setting the construction cost of 3,118,200,000 (including value-added tax) and the renovation and renovation of the guest rooms of the second and nine stories located in Jeju-do, and the construction period from October 25, 2013 to March 31, 2014. The plaintiff entered into the said construction with the defendant on October 25, 2013, and completed the said construction; the plaintiff entered into the bathing floor of the guest room of the nine story in the said construction as a luorous stone, and removed the said substitute stone, and then removed it on the date of reconstruction.

Although the plaintiff did not have any error in the construction of the above substitute, he asserted that the defendant removed the above substitute site by demanding reconstruction and then reconstructed as the date of the request by the defendant, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in the statement or image of the evidence Nos. 4 to 11, the Plaintiff can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff removed the said substitute in the meaning of defect repair and reconstructed the said substitute for another day.

In addition, it is alleged that the Additional Construction Contract is the case.