2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff as a party is a company running the steel structure construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that subcontracted the civil engineering construction work among the Honam Petroleum Site Project (G-PRECT) construction project (G-PRT construction project) in Ulsan-gu and 13 lots of land, Nam-gu.

B. The Plaintiff’s re-subcontract, etc. 1) around May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff (i) from the Defendant around May 1, 2012, the steel frame construction among the said civil construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On May 2012, the Plaintiff accepted a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 325,00,000 (Additional Tax separately). The main contents of the subcontract for the main project are as follows: The subcontracted construction for the main project: The subcontracted construction for the main project: Ulsan-gu and 13 lots of land: the contract amount on April 30, 2012, and June 30, 2012: the contract amount on June 30, 2012: the Plaintiff completed the instant additional construction in addition to the instant construction from the head of the Defendant’s site office at the end of May 2012, the Plaintiff received a request from the head of the relevant site office for the additional construction for the rashing pop, hydro-dong pipe production, driving-out, equipment carrying-in and emergency stairs (hereinafter “the instant additional construction”).

3) After consultation with the Director of the On-Site, the Plaintiff presented a written estimate of KRW 91,50,000 (including additional tax) for the instant additional construction works to B. B, the Plaintiff reported the content of the instant additional construction works and the said written estimate to the Defendant Company, and on November 25, 2012, entered the said written estimate as “B of the amount mutually determined at the site.” (including additional tax) and delivered the Plaintiff with signature. (c) The Plaintiff, such as the payment of the construction cost, was paid KRW 357,50,000 (including additional tax) from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not receive the said additional construction cost of KRW 100,650,00 (including additional tax) for the instant additional construction works [the grounds for recognition], and there was no dispute over the facts, subparagraphs 1 through 12, and subparagraph 12 of the evidence (including additional tax number).