The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) with KRW 17,307,608.

A. The Defendant removed the existing building on the ground of B large 312 square meters, C large 39.7 square meters, D large 74.8 square meters, owned by the Defendant, and removed the existing building, and multi-household housing with five floors (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) The contract was made for a new construction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on September 19, 2012, set up a standard contract form (hereinafter “instant contract form”) stating that electricity, facilities, metal, windows, landscaping, and glass works among the new construction works of the instant building will be directly performed by the Defendant, and only the remainder of the construction works will be performed by the Plaintiff. (2) On September 19, 2012, the date of commencement for the instant new construction works is September 20, 2012; the expected completion date is March 19, 2013; and the contract amount is KRW 50,000,000 (including value-added tax).

B. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff had the head of the site E perform the instant building construction work from the construction site of the instant building from around September 20, 2012, and E suspended the said construction work on March 15, 2013. (2) The Defendant filed a civil petition with the Nowon-gu Office on the ground that “on-site agent of the construction work leaves the construction site with materials related to the construction work without good cause and does not return to the construction site.” On April 2, 2013, the Nowon-gu Office notified the Defendant on the ground that “on-site agent of the construction work leaves the construction site and does not return to the construction site as soon as possible”

C. On March 15, 2013 and March 26, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the content that “the construction was delayed due to the erroneous direction and management by the on-site E warden. The Plaintiff is expected to claim compensation for delay and all damages due to delay. By March 27, 2013, the Defendant taken measures until March 27, 2013, thereby going through.”