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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. 1) On April 8, 2009, the Defendant: (a) from the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (b) performed the installation work of DNA gas stations and hazardous materials located in Ulsan-gu C on April 8, 2009 (hereinafter “the primary construction work”).

) 154,00,000 won (including value-added tax), Fjun E located in Ulsan-gun E in July 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the second construction”)

(2) On August 2009, the Plaintiff sent a warning note demanding the return of KRW 88,50,515,238 (hereinafter “instant warning note”) of the total amount of the materials to the Defendant, on the grounds that any defect occurred in the construction, etc. to the Defendant in the middle of August 2009, the Plaintiff sent the warning note demanding the return of KRW 63,015,238 (hereinafter “instant warning note”).

② The Defendant confirmed and signed the “the details of the change of the estimates of the DNA gas station” indicated in the instant warning note and the attached specifications of KRW 88,515,238, and delivered them to the Plaintiff.

3) On November 17, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming the payment of the remaining construction cost as of November 17, 2010 (Ulsan District Court 2010Gahap9029, hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”).

(4) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the preceding lawsuit of this case. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would offset the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 41,210,238 by the amount equal to the Defendant’s remaining claim for construction cost, on the ground that the Defendant used defective products while performing the first lawsuit of this case.

In this regard, the above court had a claim against the defendant for unjust enrichment of KRW 88,515,238 and defect repair costs based on the warning letter of this case.

However, while filing the instant prior suit, the Defendant deducted the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 25,50,000, which is the sum of KRW 25,354,000, and KRW 2,673,00, roof materials related to the capital increase work, KRW 6,138,00,000, ceiling materials, labor cost of KRW 10,640,000 from the Plaintiff’s claim for construction.