1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 5:

On March 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to newly construct one unit of electric source house on the land owned by the Defendant by setting the contract amount of KRW 120,232,750, and the construction period from March 22, 2014 to May 30, 2014.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 95,00,000 to the construction cost. Since the Plaintiff failed to properly implement the construction, the Defendant completed the construction by directly paying the Plaintiff’s construction cost to the subcontractor, and upon obtaining approval for use on November 3, 2014, the Defendant is currently residing.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, upon completion of the construction, shall be paid 25,232,750 won (120,232,750 won - 95,00,000 won for additional construction works ordered by the Defendant) and KRW 43,520,750 for additional construction works ordered by the Defendant.

B. The contents of the additional construction claim that KRW 1,00,000 required for changing the location at the Plaintiff’s request after the construction of the main wall and the window, KRW 1,400,000 for marina arrangement cost, KRW 1,50,000 for marina project cost, KRW 2,503,00 for marina project cost, KRW 2,685,00 for exhauster project cost, KRW 2,685,00 for exhauster project cost, and KRW 1,50,000 for an additional construction cost for an outer creative mold, KRW 1,00,000 for an additional construction cost for lighting fixtures, KRW 600 for basic construction cost for a height of KRW 8,00 for 3,70,000 for construction cost for a height of 600 meters for a primary construction cost, and KRW 3,00 for a front and rear door 3,000 for a front and rear door gate.

3. Determination

A. Although the construction was completed with respect to the remaining claims of this construction, the Defendant paid the amount of money exceeding KRW 69,186,860 as construction cost with the Plaintiff’s consent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

The facts that the Defendant, instead of the Plaintiff, did not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff had paid the construction cost, but in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 4-1-48, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.