1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the following construction of D Co., Ltd’s company’s office building on the land outside C and five parcels outside Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

Construction period: 385,00,000 won (including value-added tax): 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the primary retaining wall in accordance with the progress rate, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the secondary steel works, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the secondary steel works, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the secondary steel works, 10% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the secondary steel works, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the secondary steel works, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the third steel panel works, 10% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the construction, 20% of the contract amount at the time of completion of the additional construction contract

B. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant KRW 35 million, and KRW 35 million for the first time on May 14, 2013, KRW 10 million for the second time on May 30, 2013, and KRW 35 million for the third time on June 4, 2013.

C. On June 2013, the instant construction was interrupted due to the breakdown and ground collapse accidents, etc., and on June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to promptly resume the said construction and complete the construction by July 20, 2013 under the initial agreement.

On June 26, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to increase the construction price on the ground that the construction period has been extended due to the horse, etc., but the Plaintiff expressed color on the ground that the Defendant did not properly execute the construction price upon receipt of the payment of the construction price. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking with the following content (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

In the process of performing the instant construction, the Defendant promised to receive the cost of the construction works (confinites, irons, etc.) generated after June 26, 2013 from the contract price after directly paying the cost to the customer and deducting it from the contract price after completion of the construction works.

E. The instant construction was resumed after the completion of the instant undertaking, but it was not completed by the agreed completion date.

The Plaintiff’s construction work of this case on September 26, 2013.