PPD Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

New Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheongung Law, Attorney Kim Yong-sub, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 15, 2013

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Da2634, 2012Gahap2641 decided July 25, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in total with the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. Purport of claim

In this lawsuit: It is confirmed that each construction contract of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) does not exist any obligation on April 16, 2003, May 1 of the same year, and October 1 of the same year.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 200,000,000 won with 5% per annum from April 28, 2009 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 20 million won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from April 28, 2009 to the service date of the duplicate of the counterclaim in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except with the following, and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Going the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” on No. 5 of the first instance judgment as “Defendant”

○ Up to the 6th sentence of the first instance court’s second sentence “B” through the 4th sentence are as follows.

The provisional attachment right holder does not terminate the exercise of his/her right by exercising his/her claim, but the debtor deposits the amount of monetary claim executed by provisional attachment in lieu of the object of provisional attachment (Article 282 of the Civil Execution Act) or the debtor deposits the amount of monetary claim executed by provisional attachment in order to avoid his/her disadvantage (Article 297 of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as it is reasonable, and the defendant's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.

Judges Yang Sung-ju (Presiding Judge) Dubalms