1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2013, C (D’s business owner) entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the construction work for remodeling construction of the main basement floor in Pyeongtaek-si E (Gu) Hospital located in (Gu) (hereinafter “instant hospital”) from October 7, 2013 to November 30, 2013, the construction period of which is KRW 215,000,000 for total construction cost (excluding value-added tax), and entered into a contract with the Defendant on an additional amount of KRW 60,000 for electrical construction (electrics, etc. and small diskettess) and public toilets construction work.

B. On October 7, 2013, C entered into a contract between the Defendant and the construction period for the extension work of the funeral hall of the instant hospital from October 7, 2013 to November 30, 2013; and the total construction cost of KRW 250,000,000.

C. On May 29, 2014, C entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant for the construction of a pharmacy building on the land of Pyeongtaek-si G with respect to the construction cost of KRW 200,000,000.

C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid construction cost for each of the above paragraphs (a) through (c) above (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”) and the additional construction cost related to each of the instant construction works.

(C) The Seoul High Court 2016Na201562, Seoul High Court 2016Na2015622, hereinafter referred to as "the case") e.

C During the instant lawsuit, C asserted that there was an additional part of the construction works other than each of the instant construction works, and applied for an appraisal in accordance with the said appraisal application, and the underground floor floor, pentco-day construction, etc. of the instant hospital is stated in the appraisal report as an additional construction work.

F. The Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing C’s claims against the Defendant on October 26, 2017.

C appealed and appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da278637), and the Supreme Court dismissed C’s appeal on February 8, 2018.

G. The Plaintiff is the husband of C and the actual operator of D.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 5 through 9 (including each number), pleading.