1. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 537,463,929 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 456,498,029 among them.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (i.e., a subcontract) with the Defendant to conclude a contract with the effect that the Plaintiff would receive a subcontract (hereinafter “the third subcontract of the instant third construction”) with the terms that the Plaintiff would receive a subcontract with the Defendant during the period of contract for the water supply and drainage works among the water supply and drainage works (III) and the construction period from August 1, 2011 to October 20, 201. The third construction of the instant third construction was actually carried out by Nonparty D, registered as the Plaintiff’s internal director as of September 6, 2011.

B) After November 10, 201, the Defendant entered into a modified contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the condition that the contract amount of the instant third construction subcontract was 693,07,000 won, and that the construction period was changed from August 1, 201 to November 10, 201. (2) On August 26, 2011, the details of the payment date of the construction payment that the Defendant directly paid to the Plaintiff (unit costs) paid to the Plaintiff (unit costs) as of August 26, 201, Plaintiff 80,000,040,000 for the last half of September 1, 201, Plaintiff 229,040,000, totaled KRW 332,037,000,000, KRW 641,07,007,000,000 for the completion of the instant third construction project from August 26, 2011 to the Plaintiff.

3) On November 30, 201, the completion of the instant third construction and subsequent situation A) the instant third construction was completed on November 30, 201. On December 22, 2011, after the completion of the instant third construction, a civil petition was filed with respect to overdue payment of wages, material costs, etc. (hereinafter “instant third construction payment”).

B. Regarding the arrears of the third construction cost of this case, the defendant asserted that he was liable to the plaintiff as the construction cost was fully paid. The plaintiff asserted that he was liable to the defendant as he did not receive all the actual construction cost from the defendant, and that he was liable to the defendant for the arrears of the third construction cost of this case.