1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff continued construction upon receipt of a request from the Defendant (the former trade name: C & D) to repair the fire-fighting equipment and the mechanical room of the E building (hereinafter “instant primary construction”). On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 25 million as the construction price.

B. On April 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for the aforementioned fire-fighting equipment and machinery room repair works (hereinafter “the instant secondary construction works”), and continued construction works, including the first and second construction works.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the first construction cost of this case is KRW 62 million (excluding additional tax) and the second construction cost of this case is KRW 32 million (excluding additional tax). The Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the balance of the construction cost of this case as KRW 69 million (excluding additional tax) after deducting KRW 25 million already paid. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 75.9 million (including additional tax) and damages for delay.

B. We examine whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the settlement of the construction cost of this case, or whether the construction work of this case exceeds KRW 25 million already received.

According to the testimony of the witness F, it is recognized that F, who held office as the Defendant’s internal director on October 12, 2017, issued and delivered a written confirmation that “the balance of the construction price of this case is KRW 69 million (excluding surtax),” to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2017 (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the testimony of Eul evidence No. 1 and witness F, namely, the F served as the manager of the Dispute Settlement Bank on March 30, 2009, which D operated on March 30, 2009, and retired on June 30, 2016, and was in office as the defendant's internal director.