1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) on 271,571.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the construction project that newly constructs two Dongs (A), B, and one research institute (C Dong) on the said land as a 3,908 square meters owner of the land in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and the Plaintiff is a construction company that received a contract from the Defendant for the instant construction project.

B. On June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract under the terms of KRW 1,870,000 for the instant construction (the construction cost of KRW 1,76,500,000 for the design and supervision of KRW 93,50,00 for the construction cost) and the construction period from June 29 to December 15, 2009 for the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The instant contract was modified several times during the process of the construction project. On February 11, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to increase the construction cost to KRW 2,640,000,000 (the construction portion of KRW 2,546,500,000) and to extend the construction period to March 30, 2010. As such, the instant contract was modified to the end of March 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant modified contract”). The rate of liquidated damages under the instant modified contract was set to 1/100 of the daily contract amount per delay.

The Plaintiff continued the instant construction in accordance with the instant modified contract and completed a substantial portion of the construction. However, after March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded additional construction costs and suspended the construction. The amount that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant under the instant modified contract reaches KRW 2,336,175,00 in total.

E. Meanwhile, around April 2010, Nonparty D, who is in charge of the design and supervision of the instant construction, applied for approval for use of the building newly constructed by the instant construction to the competent authority. At the time, Nonparty D, at the time, pointed out that the installation of a fire prevention zone of the elevator hole of the instant construction, the installation of a rail rail of the second floor of the Adong elevator, the installation of a rail rail of the open section of the B Dong B, B Dong, Cdong connections to the second floor, and the building-to-land ratio of the Cdong underground floor was exceeded, and the said intellectual

F. The defendant around that time rejected the above approval of use and the need for complementary construction.