1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive subcontract for construction cost of KRW 435,000,00 of the construction cost among B University Complex and Facilities Construction Works located in Pyeongtaek-si A, which was contracted by the Defendant from the same Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”). The main contents of the instant construction contract are as follows.

2. The Plaintiff shall perform a blanket liability execution for all parts except for the disposal of the remaining soil of the Corporation.

3. The plaintiff shall complete the construction management, safety management, and quality control, and perform the construction work in good faith in compliance with the design document. The defendant may demand correction or suspension of construction work in a case where there are parts not suitable for the design document among the construction works executed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must comply with it without delay.

4. The Plaintiff may not claim the payment of the excess amount even if the actual cost of construction exceeds 100% of the agreed amount, and the Plaintiff may not claim the adjustment of the agreed amount by asserting the increase in the management cost burden.

7. The plaintiff shall carry out the above agreed work and, if any additional work (in addition to the contract amount increase), other than the pertinent work, immediately notify the defendant thereof, and then mutually consult on the additional work (in addition to the contract amount increase).

B. Around February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 435,000,000 as the construction price.

[Grounds for Recognition: Entry of Evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was found in the process of carrying out a astronomical work among the instant construction works, and the additional construction was carried out. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s first statement from C warden, the Defendant’s agent at the site, is different from the actual construction quantity. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is completed.