1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the business of construction and installation of virtue facility with the trade name B, and the defendant is a company engaged in the business of construction and equipment construction.

B. (1) On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for mutual assistance and for the installation and supply of the production and supply of the smoke duct in the new construction site located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) From April 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013, the content of the instant contract: (a) the amount of the agreed construction cost was KRW 1,727,00,000 (including surtax) that the Plaintiff agreed to produce, supply, and install a mutual assistance and mutual support for the Defendant from D New Construction to April 30, 2013; (b) the construction cost was to be paid on the 25th day of the following month after the confirmation of installation and trial operation upon the request at the end of the month; (c) under other conditions, the agreed amount was stipulated that “the final input amount can be changed at the time of the completion of the delivery, and the amount of the agreed to apply the increase rate of 25% for the unpaid input amount.”

C. On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, setting the amount of the settlement agreement as KRW 1,814,93,150 (Additional Tax Table). The Defendant, purchased materials directly from the Plaintiff and paid them to the Plaintiff as KRW 285,006,850, in which the final construction amount is KRW 2,100,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 59-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) established a virtue equivalent to KRW 3,108,557,760 at the Defendant’s continuous request, and additionally performed construction work equivalent to KRW 1,538,557,760 in the amount of construction stipulated in the instant contract. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 and damages for delay thereof, which are part of the said additional construction cost.

(2) The Defendant’s objection is from July 2012 to February 2013.