1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of electrical construction business, fire-fighting equipment business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of interior work business, etc.

B. On June 13, 2011, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by the Defendant for electrical construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among remodeling construction works of the building C located in Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant building”) at the construction period from June 13, 201 to August 25, 201, with the construction cost of KRW 255,000,000 (Additional Tax separately) (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 25,500,000 as the instant construction cost on July 6, 201, KRW 25,500,00 on July 15, 201, KRW 50,000 on August 18, 2011, KRW 50,000 on September 6, 201, KRW 50,000 on September 6, 201, and KRW 104,00,000 on January 18, 201 (total KRW 25,00,000), and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on October 13, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 11, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, witness D and E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s main claim - Part on the claim for additional construction cost

A. The content of the instant construction contract 1) In order to determine whether this part of the construction contract was an additional construction that had not existed in the terms of the original contract, the scope of the agreed construction work should be determined at the time of the contract, and in order to determine the scope of the initial construction work, the scope and contents of the contract and its accompanying documents should be first examined. 2) As to the scope of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff merely entered into a fake contract, such as evidence No. 11 (No. 1) and did not include the terms and conditions of the construction contract or the specifications in the contract, and the evidence No. 3 (No. 3) stated that the contract was not entered into on July 201, 201 after the conclusion of the instant construction contract.