1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on April 29, 2015, with the content that the construction cost of KRW 616,851,00 for a navigational aid indicating the location of the rock base (hereinafter “instant construction”) was KRW 616,851,00 for a construction period, and the compensation for delay was 0.1% for delay (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a positive report stating that “The Plaintiff would allow the Defendant to change the method of destroying the base of the instant construction from human resources to a revolving system using machinery,” and the Defendant approved it on the 10th of the same month.

C. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a positive report to the Defendant to the effect that “The instant construction period may not be extended to 23 days because there are circumstances, such as making it impossible to operate the bus due to bad weather conditions.” On October 27, 2015, the Defendant decided to extend the period to 8 days out of the said 23th day of the Plaintiff’s request by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract modification agreement with the effect that the construction period of the instant construction is extended by November 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant modification agreement”). D.

On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a positive report to the Defendant on the purport that “The construction cost of KRW 34,672,000 shall be deemed to be additionally required in the course of transporting, storing, and holding meetings of PRECAS WAL (such as a ball-shaped structure made in a block form).” On November 25, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff cannot accept a request for design change at the present time the construction work type is completed most of the construction work type, and it does not constitute a ground for a construction contract.”

E. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff delayed the construction due to the lighting and strike of the instant construction site to the Defendant on November 27, 2015.