1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are acknowledged to the effect that there is no dispute or the entire pleadings, in addition to each macro- documentary evidence.

On April 30, 2010 from C (hereinafter referred to as C) on April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff continued construction work by being awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 3.65.8 billion for the construction cost of the building site and the new construction work of the factory building on 15 lots outside Seoul-gu D and 15

[A] On May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff subcontracted the part of “a reinforced soil retaining wall construction” (hereinafter referred to as “the retaining wall construction of this case”) to the Defendant on the cost of construction KRW 737,00,000,000 for the said construction.

[A] The Construction Corporation of the above factory completed around May 2012 and obtained authorization of completion on December 21, 2012.

However, on November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was a contractor, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim of defective damages as the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2013Gahap1346, suffered damages that part of the construction cost set off after the Plaintiff was sentenced to a partial failure in the said court.

[A] Even in the Daegu High Court case where both appeals were brought to the two appeals, the said court recognized the amount of damages incurred by the defect as KRW 548,865,800 on October 26, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was because both parties did not file an appeal.

[A] The details of defects recognized in each of the above judgments in relation to the retaining wall construction of this case and the cost of repairing them are as follows:

[A] 1] . - The defect in the distribution diameter of the retaining wall of the reinforced soil: 110,1780,000 won in the evidence No. 1,00 won in the above case, although the witness E presented "the defect repair cost of this part, including the surcharge of KRW 104,345,00,00," the judgment of the court of first instance and the appellate court acknowledged the 11,1780,000 won as it claimed by C for the defect repair cost of this part without any ground.

See the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Gahap1346, 2013Gahap1940 (Counterclaim) Decided November 24, 2015, see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1346, 2013Gahap1940 (Counterclaim) - 257.10,000 - 11,829.70,000 won in total, and the above.