1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the plaintiff's new argument in the trial of the court of first instance added to the following judgment as to the plaintiff's new argument in the trial of the court of first instance, and the "2,620,000 won" in Item 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "2,620,000 won" in Item 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "2,620,000 won", and the "defendant's defendant" in Sections 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the defendant's" is the same as

【Additional Parts of the Court of First Instance 6 and 7. The Plaintiff, in collusion with normal Saturdays Co., Ltd., agreed on July 15, 2012, in which the Defendants transferred the purchase price claim amounting to KRW 214,775,000 against the Defendant Co., Ltd. to normal Saturdays, to the Defendant Co., Ltd. on July 15, 2012, and E is not fully obligated to pay the same amount. As such, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff suffered losses for which the construction price equivalent to the same amount was not paid. However, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the tort, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the part of the claim for compensation for delay should be dismissed, since the Defendant Company, while entering into an agreement on settlement with normal soil, gave up the compensation for delay that was already incurred at the time, or agreed not to hold the liability, at the time, at the time of the agreement on settlement with normal soil, and that the portion of the claim for compensation for delay should be corrected. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the items of evidence No. 3-6 and evidence No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the part of the claim for construction price in the principal lawsuit is dismissed as unlawful, and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages among the principal lawsuit is accepted.