1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant concluded an agreement on October 1, 2013, stipulating that the total cost and unit price construction of electric distribution lines and the Korea Electric Power Corporation that the Plaintiff supplied and supplied shall be 77% of the completed contract amount (in the case of electric distribution works) (hereinafter the instant agreement).

B. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Korea Electric Power Corporation with construction cost of KRW 157,107,114, the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s relocation construction cost of KRW 233,730,965, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s relocation construction cost of KRW 152,194,543.

C. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to terminate the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”) with the following content.

- As to the 2 cases of Korea Electric Power Corporation in progress by the Plaintiff, the 2 cases of the Korea Electric Power Corporation running from the 2 cases to the 2 cases of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Cheongyang Construction Corporation, and the Cheongju Construction Corporation, which is in progress, the Defendant performed the site construction at the direction of the Plaintiff, but all

- The Plaintiff pays 90,000,000 won to the Defendant for the ongoing construction work up to now, and the Defendant submits to the Plaintiff materials and documents, and the process photographs received from the Han River.

After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant according to the instant settlement agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 evidence, witness Gap's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant had the Plaintiff enter into the instant settlement agreement by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s imminent circumstances. The instant settlement agreement constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus null and void. 2) The Defendant deceptioned the expenditure cost, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to enter into the instant settlement agreement.

The defendant.