1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to repair defects stated in the attached Table against the Defendant does not exist exceeding KRW 245,04,656.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant as to January 17, 2006, determined and subcontracted as construction cost of KRW 12,45,116,00,00 (the final increase of KRW 12,75,116,00 through a four-time modified contract) for the National Highway Construction Contract (hereinafter “instant construction project”) among the “National Highway Construction Contract” that the Defendant received from the Defendant from the Korea Local Land Management Agency on January 17, 2006, as the construction cost of KRW 12,41,90,000 (the final increase of KRW 12,75,116,00 through a four-time modified contract) and the date of the commencement of the construction work.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”). B. The said subcontract was concluded.

A dispute between the parties and the Plaintiff’s interruption of construction work performed additional construction work in accordance with the instant construction work and the Defendant’s instructions, and received approximately KRW 6.3 billion of the construction cost until May 201.

On June 201, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay approximately KRW 1.4 billion for the construction cost incurred by the additional works, but the Defendant rejected the payment of the said construction cost on the ground that it was excessive compared to the completed portion. On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant subcontract on the ground that the said contract was unfair, etc., and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said contract on the ground that the construction cost was not paid, and then delivered the instant construction site to the Defendant after suspending the instant construction work on or around June 2012.

C. On the one hand, it was necessary to obtain permission from the competent local government to collect earth and rocks necessary for the instant construction work, and the foregoing B.

On August 26, 2011, prior to the discontinuance of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff issued a written confirmation to the Defendant that “In relation to the development of earth and sand, the Plaintiff shall first bring in the construction site of this case with a soil capacity of 119,805 cubic meters, and shall not interfere with the progress of the said construction, and shall confirm that the Plaintiff is responsible for all civil and criminal matters concerning the development of earth and sand.”