1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a supply of KRW 858,00,00 (including value-added tax) for the placement plant installation and operation of an plant (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction works; (b) on October 31, 2015 as of the scheduled date of completion of construction; and (c) on October 31, 2015, the contract price of KRW 858,00,000 (including value-added tax); and (d) on December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff did not receive a total of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for concrete production costs for December 12, 2015, and KRW 360,000,000 among the installation costs; and (d) the additional amount of KRW 630,360,000; and

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Construction Contract for Private Construction (Evidence A) which is the instant construction contract, “B/P after the completion of construction work shall be the condition that the Defendant removes the Plaintiff after returning it to the Plaintiff.” The statement in the evidence No. 2 of the instant construction contract alone changed the method of paying the construction cost according to the instant construction contract.

In addition to the total construction cost of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that it was to pay the cost of dismantling plants in addition to the total construction cost of this case, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected

Rather, the Plaintiff received only KRW 802,120,00 for the instant construction project, and filed a complaint to claim KRW 55 million for the unpaid construction cost, and even if the Defendant submitted a tax invoice of KRW 907,280,000 for the total construction cost paid to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff separately claims for the cost of dismantling plants, etc. after submitting a tax invoice of KRW 907,280,00 for the instant construction cost

2. The judgment of the defendant on the counterclaim shall be based on the construction cost of the plaintiff and the construction work of this case.