A. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract by designating KRW 562,100,000 of the total construction cost of the construction works for the construction of a new site neighborhood living facility B (hereinafter “instant contract”); around May 2013, when the Plaintiff was in progress, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the instant contract agreement; and the Defendant paid KRW 120,000,000 out of the said price to the Plaintiff by the time, and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 120,00,000 to the Plaintiff is either a dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 120,00,000 out of the said price to the Plaintiff is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of arguments.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 12,00,000 (i.e., KRW 132,00,000 - KRW 120,000,000) less the Defendant’s substitute payment of KRW 4,000,000 (the Defendant claimed that he paid KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s sewage supplier rather than KRW 4,000,000, and there is no evidence to prove that he paid it), and the damages for delay at the rate of KRW 8,00,000,000, which is the day following the day on which the duplicate of the complaint in this case seeking payment was served to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendant’s assertion (i.e., the part on access roads to a building other than the foundation construction of the building pursuant to the instant contract).

Sheb, however, when executing the ditch construction, it should be seen that the water of the ditch should be lowered, and it is necessary to complete the ditch with the iron cover that can be seen inside, but the plaintiff done the construction in an unlawful way by disregarding it and covering it with soil.

Fidelity Defendant received an order to restore the ditch from the competent authorities, and disbursed KRW 41,00,000 for construction cost of restitution.

x. Accordingly, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.