1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective statements in Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, and Eul evidence 2 (including additional numbers), the witness C, and D's testimony and the overall purport of each of the arguments.

On May 26, 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for a new construction of housing with a size of 575 square meters on the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the construction of the above house and delivered it to the Defendant, and on September 26, 2016, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the future of the Defendant.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000 as the construction cost of this case.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant construction cost of KRW 123,00,000, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of the construction cost, subtracting the construction cost of KRW 90,000,000, which was already paid from the said contract amount, as well as damages for delay from September 26, 2016, which was the date of completion of the instant construction work.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant construction cost of KRW 90,000,000, and thus, they cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions in the evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the agreement between the parties to the construction contract to simultaneously implement the remainder of the construction work and the delivery of the completed construction work objects. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the completed house to the Defendant without being paid the construction cost more than five months after receiving the last construction cost from the Defendant around April 26, 2016, and the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the said house on September 26, 2016, the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 and the testimony of witness D alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the construction cost of this case at KRW 123,00,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion can be accepted.