1. It is about 182,694,827 won deposited by the Incheon District Court on October 19, 2012 by the Incheon District Court No. 6956 on October 19, 2012.

1. We examine both the principal claim and judgment as well as the counterclaim.

(a) The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including each number, if any).

1) Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

(1) On November 30, 201, the Defendant ordered B construction works ordered by the Incheon Metropolitan City Strengthening-gun (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

(2) On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant share 51% of the Plaintiff’s share, and the Defendant share 49% of the total construction amount (including value added tax) were jointly supplied to KRW 1,019,232,00 of the construction amount (including value added tax). The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant 15% of the amount calculated by deducting the value added tax on the Defendant’s share and the four premium from the construction amount of the Defendant share (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

3) On June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction and received a completion inspection on or around the 19th day of the same month, and settled the final amount of KRW 956,222,00 (including value-added tax) by partially reducing the construction cost of the instant construction with the Incheon Metropolitan City Reinforcement-gun. 4) Incheon Metropolitan City Reinforcement-gun deposited the remainder of KRW 182,694,827 of the instant construction (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Plaintiff or the Defendant under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on October 19, 2012, and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, under the Incheon District Court Ordinance No. 6956, Jun. 13, 2012.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the deposit money of this case shall belong to the plaintiff who performed the whole construction work of this case pursuant to the agreement of this case. Thus, the claim for payment of deposit money of this case shall belong to the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant contests this claim, the plaintiff shall have the interest to seek confirmation.

As to this, the defendant is the defendant's share for the portion of the construction cost reduced due to the plaintiff's defective construction and delay of construction.