1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is to claim the second additional construction cost that took place for about one month from April 27, 2016 to May 1 of the same year from among the construction cost for the neighboring C and multi-family houses of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, and constructed by the Defendant, and the amount is KRW 41,384,860.

On April 27, 2016, a separate construction was made after the settlement of payment for the originally agreed construction work and the first additional construction work, and the additional construction was added under an oral agreement to settle the future construction cost.

It is an argument to the effect that the second additional works are (the second additional works).

Judgment

As it is separate from the secondary construction claimed by the Plaintiff, the former additional construction (i.e., the so-called “the first additional construction”) was settled as of April 27, 2016 by the original Defendant at KRW 3,1650,00 (3,4), and the fact that the Plaintiff was paid the said money in full is no dispute between the parties.

After the settlement agreement of April 27, 2016, the second additional construction was made and the price reaches KRW 41,384,860, there is sufficient proof on the plaintiff's assertion.

It is insufficient to recognize the facts alleged by the plaintiff only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1-3 or Gap evidence 6-3-3 and witness D's testimony.

The defendant's rebuttal also considered, and even if the items of the second additional construction are different from those of the construction works performed as the first additional construction works, the items that seem to overlap in the evidence No. 1-4, No. 5 (Plaintiffs No. 1, No. 1, and No. 2) are discovered, and there is lack of explanation.

There is no contract, settlement agreement, etc. related to the second additional construction.

There is no assertion on the issuance of a tax invoice and there is no assertion that the certificate of defect repair performance guarantee was issued.

Witness

D’s statements are low credibility when considering the fact that they are related only to additional construction before April 27, 2016 (the first place).

There is no other proof by the plaintiff.