1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 295,05,056,00 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) or written guarantee indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into the construction contract with the Defendant to extend the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract,” and the said contract for the instant construction contract, upon setting as the contract amount of KRW 3.52 billion (including value-added tax), April 1, 2011, and November 30, 201, when the completion date of the construction works is determined as the date of commencement, and on November 30, 201, the completion date of the construction works is determined as KRW 3.52 million (including value-added tax).

B. On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to revise the scheduled completion date of the instant construction contract to December 31, 201, and concluded an amendment agreement with the Defendant again on December 28, 2011, to increase the construction cost in KRW 4 billion with the Defendant, and the scheduled completion date of the instant construction contract to late March 15, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant amendment agreement”). C. The Plaintiff started the construction according to the instant construction contract, and thereafter completed the construction and issued a provisional approval for temporary use on March 27, 2012. D. The Defendant paid a total of KRW 3.91,347 million as the construction cost to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, on September 20, 2012, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to provide a notice of defects including the 1.6 billion number, 1.4 billion number, 3.1 billion number, 1.4 billion number, 1.3 billion number, 1.3 billion number, and 1.

statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Defendant, at the time of the instant construction contract, has agreed to resolve the dispute on the issues arising under the contract at the time of the instant construction contract by mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but, if agreement is not reached, the court having jurisdiction over the head office of the Defendant agreed to resolve the dispute by mutual agreement. Thus, the instant lawsuit is an unlawful lawsuit contrary to the above jurisdiction agreement.

However, the above agreement jurisdiction is not an exclusive jurisdiction in court.