1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant completed the construction works to remove the building; the construction waste reclamation site was closed during the construction process; and the unit price of reclamation was increased automatically; and the Defendant agreed to additionally pay the settlement amount following such increase in the cost of reclamation.

Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff calculated the settlement amount of KRW 62,592,00,00 as calculated by the BAUM, a business operator, based on the technical review statement of BAUM Co., Ltd. (Evidence 6) that “CM business operator had expressed his/her opinion that it is reasonable to reflect the cost of waste disposal, and calculated KRW 62,592,00 with the settlement amount.”

However, in light of the aforementioned part of the technical review statement, “(3) settlement statement,” the Plaintiff requested the increase of the construction cost of KRW 57,703,60 by reflecting the change of the unit price for waste disposal costs, and the BAUM did not recognize the whole amount as subject to the increase on the ground that “the increase of the unit price for waste disposal costs is not subject to a change in terms of the terms of the contract,” and rather, it appears that the Plaintiff expressed its opinion that the construction cost of KRW 4,888,400 should be reduced based on the settlement of the partial volume (i.e., “the content of settlement” refers to the sum of KRW 57,703,60 and the amount subject to reduction of KRW 4,88,400, which is the sum of KRW 62,592,00,000, which is the aggregate amount of KRW 57,703,600,000.

Therefore, even if it is presumed that the Plaintiff’s claim for the increase in the construction cost in this case was justifiable, it is not easy to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of KRW 62,592,00 as the claim amount.

such payment. The payment shall be made.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 15, 2015, the Defendant removed from the Defendant the 587-21 East Building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

19,900,000 (including value-added tax);