1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The key issue of the instant case was: (a) around January 30, 2010, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the construction work for the Namyang-ju B, and completed the construction work around April 30, 2010.

The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendant has expired by extinctive prescription.

2. Determination

A. Unless an agreement is reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the completion of the extinctive prescription period, the extinctive prescription of the claim for construction cost can be exercised, i.e., the date on which the construction is completed, and the period from April 30, 2010.

Even if the contract was concluded to settle the construction cost after the completion of construction, the extinctive prescription of the contract price claim shall be reckoned from the time when the construction work is completed, not from the time of

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost has already been completed three years prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit ( July 22, 2014), which was when three years have passed again counting from April 28, 201, which was interrupted due to the Defendant’s approval of the Defendant’s obligation.

B. On December 8, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would pay construction cost if the circumstances were improved, and that the extinctive prescription does not run since the conditions, such as the improvement of the financial situation, were not fulfilled. However, the Defendant’s content certification on December 8, 2010, which was merely seeking understanding to the Plaintiff as to the delay in the performance of the obligation for construction cost, is not deemed to have been changed to the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost as a condition precedent (the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost as of December 8, 2010, and thus, cannot be deemed to have been changed to the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost as a condition precedent (the purport of the Plaintiff’s argument and the entire argument). (2) The Plaintiff sent a proof to the Defendant on July 29, 2013 that the Plaintiff would pay the construction cost by the date of August 31, 2013, and thus the Defendant did not raise any objection.

However, the plaintiff's content certification on July 29, 2013 is merely the peremptory notice to perform the obligation.