1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she concluded a construction contract with the Defendant to receive a contract for the construction of a new site C neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract.” At the time of entering into the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the amount of the construction contract as KRW 1,150,000 (excluding value-added tax), but separately set up a contract stating the amount of the construction contract as KRW 1,355,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) for loan, etc.

The Plaintiff completed the instant construction project on February 26, 2015 and delivered a new building to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 485,60,000 and the delay damages, deducting the amount of KRW 664,40,000 already paid from the construction contract amount of KRW 1,150,000 under the said construction contract.

B. 1) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation. However, even if a disposal document is a disposal document, if there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the written agreement, it may recognize facts different from the content of the written agreement. In interpreting a legal act of the originator, it may be decided with free evaluation of evidence to the extent that it does not violate the empirical rules and logical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da34643, Apr. 13, 2006; 2006Da2490, 2506, Nov. 29, 2007; 2006Da2490, 2506).

A No. 16.