1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the primary counterclaim claims added by this court are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment as to the basic facts and the claims on the merits of the lawsuit are as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding “No. B No. 18” to “Evidence No. 2, 8, 9, and 11” No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part shall be cited as it is

2. Judgment on the main counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate in lieu of the payment of KRW 56,50,000 among the construction price of the instant case, and thus, the obligation to pay the construction price was extinguished by novation. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 18,10,000,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff delayed the completion of the instant construction project 61 days.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate from the Defendant, and pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 18.1 million with unjust enrichment, KRW 6,893,000 with liquidated damages, and delay damages for each said money.

B. The part of the main claim that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the claim for the acquisition of ownership transfer registration procedure and the payment in kind for the real estate of this case.

The defendant's above claim is without merit.

C. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 18,100,000,000 for the determination of the additional unjust enrichment claim.

Rather, it is recognized in this part that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 58.4 million as the instant construction cost and the additional construction cost.

The defendant's above claim is without merit. D.

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone as to the claim for additional damages is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff caused the damages for delay of KRW 6,893,00 by delay the completion of the construction of the construction of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, A.