1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction works from October 5, 2015 to November 30, 2015 (including value-added tax) for the period from October 5, 2015 to November 30, 2015, among the construction works for new facilities in Seo-gu A located in Gwangju-gu.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

The Plaintiff completed construction under the instant subcontract, and received a total of KRW 94,219,400 from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that around December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to change the construction cost of the instant subcontract to KRW 142,846,00 by increasing the construction cost, and sought payment for the remainder of the construction cost.

3. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff only prepared a modified contract for the construction project that is separate from the B in the contract form A for convenience and that there was no change in the contract amount to the extent that the contract amount would have been increased as alleged by the plaintiff in the actual construction project

According to Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 4, the plaintiff was issued by the Specialized Construction Mutual Aid Association for the contract amount of KRW 85,646,000 on October 6, 2010, and additionally issued a contract guarantee of KRW 57,200,000 on December 11, 2015, and the plaintiff and the defendant made a modified contract with the contract amount of KRW 142,846,00 on the above reinforced concrete construction around December 10, 2015.

However, in full view of the fact-finding results on Eul 5, 6, 7, and 11 certificates, and the fact-finding results on the Epip of the architectural firms, it is recognized that the Apip Construction Corporation only minor changes, such as the increase of the height of decoration walls compared to the building permit at the time of approval for use, and that there was no change in the extent that the addition of reinforced concrete construction works was needed, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, except for the preparation of the contract guarantee certificate