1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in the judgment is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

1. The scope of the trial at the court of first instance, on the premise that the right to claim direct payment of the subcontract price in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto is recognized against the defendant at the court of first instance, the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff at the court of first instance (appointed parties) for the payment of the unpaid construction price. In preparation for the case where the above right to claim direct payment is not acknowledged, the plaintiff filed a preliminary lawsuit seeking full payment of the total amount of the unpaid construction price to the plaintiff. However, the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim by the joint plaintiff at the court of first instance (appointed parties) and partly accepted the defendant's counterclaim.

Therefore, the joint plaintiff (Appointed) of the first instance court does not appeal, and only the plaintiff appealed and contests only the part corresponding to the claim for preliminary principal lawsuit. Thus, the part concerning the claim for main principal lawsuit in the first instance court does not fall under the scope of the judgment of the court.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name set forth in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the first instance shall be used below the same as it is.

3. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for principal action completed the instant construction work in accordance with each of the instant contracts, and that there remains KRW 145,421,173,80 among the Defendant’s KRW 151,08,440,364 and KRW 5,67,266,564.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment for the construction cost of KRW 5,67,266,564 and the delay damages therefor.

4. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff, as to the defendant's counterclaims or counterclaims, should be dismissed as it constitutes a means of real-time attack and defense against the defendant's counterclaims. However, the court of first instance held that the defendant's counterclaims constitute a means of real-time attack and defense, but it has