2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's claim is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

A. As to the Defendant’s counterclaim of offset, the Defendant did not perform the remaining and fourth floor expansion works in the instant agreement until June 23, 2016, even though the non-party company agreed to complete them by June 23, 2016. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant would offset the construction costs of KRW 155,050,00 in total (i) the amount of KRW 147,750,000 in the deposit transaction statement in the evidence No. 2, which appears in the deposit transaction statement of KRW 147,750,00 in cash, and the amount of KRW 7,300,000 in cash, which is not shown in the said deposit transaction statement, due to the non-party company’s default, and due to the claim for damages arising from the delay of construction and the claim for delay of construction.

B. Determination 1) Of the annexed sheet, the amount of construction cost recognized by the Defendant as spent by the Defendant: KRW 105,050,000 is the Defendant’s statement of expenditure for the construction cost as indicated in the Defendant’s preparatory document as of March 6, 2018. The amount of construction cost acknowledged by this court based on the overall purport of each item of evidence and witness, P, Q, and R’s testimony and pleading listed in the annexed sheet is the total amount of KRW 15,050,000 (amount of cash transferred to the passbook) out of the total amount of KRW 15,050,000 (amount of cash transferred to the Plaintiff as of December 8, 2016) listed in the annexed sheet as of December 21, 2016, which is included in the remittance amount of the passbook.

witness of the first instance court.