In the first instance trial, the Defendant filed a counterclaim by combining ① a claim related to the transfer of bid rights, ② a claim related to the investment of the Korea Facility Mutual-Aid Association, ③ a claim related to construction of the 16th MH Airfield (hereinafter “Ycheon Airfield”), ④ a claim related to the construction cost of H, and ⑤ a claim related to the payment of expenses related to the operation cost of E.

In addition, there is no explicit reason for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim related to the cash custody certificate among the plaintiff's main claim.

However, there was no dispute between the original defendant that the claim related to the cash custody certificate overlaps with the claim related to the payment note prepared by the defendant on October 11, 2010. When considering that the plaintiff stated that he would modify the purport of the claim, it seems that there was no need to enter the reasons for the judgment. Therefore, even if there was no relevant provision in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, the expression "the dismissal of the plaintiff's remaining claim for the original lawsuit" in the text is deemed to have been judged as to the claim related to the cash custody certificate. It was all dismissed, and 4, 6, and 8 were partially accepted.

In addition, among the defendant's counterclaim claims, the above ①, ②, ③ and ⑤ claims were entirely dismissed, ④ claims were partially accepted.

In regard to this, only the defendant has filed an appeal and only the counterclaim has been filed.