1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the business of construction and maintenance of virtue facilities in the trade name of B, and the defendant is a company engaged in the business of construction and installation of machinery.

Around December 1, 2010, the Defendant subcontracted four sections for machinery and equipment works among D new construction works located in Yongsan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-si, the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2012, with the agreed amount of KRW 1.7 billion (including value-added tax) among the said machinery and equipment works, and the period of installation from April 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant contract.” At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the progress payment shall be paid once at the end of each month on the 25th day of the following month after the establishment and the confirmation of trial run, but the said agreed that “The amount of the instant contract may be changed when the final input amount is determined at the time of the completion of the delivery and installation, and the amount of the unpaid input amount shall be adjusted and reduced, and the premium rate of 25% shall apply to the construction cost.”

On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the settlement of the process completion related to the instant contract, and concluded a settlement agreement with the following: “The amount of settlement agreement is KRW 1,814,93,150 (excluding value-added tax); the amount of materials purchased and paid by the Defendant directly from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is KRW 285,006,850; and the amount of the final construction amount is KRW 2,100,000,000.”

(hereinafter “Agreement on Settlement of Accounts of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion added the construction cost of approximately KRW 1,738,470,680 to KRW 1,570,000 (in the case of value-added tax, KRW 1,727,00,000) stipulated in the contract of this case by establishing a virtue equivalent to KRW 3,300,470,680 at the Defendant’s continuous request. As such, the Defendant added the construction cost of KRW 1,738,470,680.