1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 78,900,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from November 14, 2013 to December 11, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C on behalf of the Defendant for construction costs of KRW 99,000,000 with respect to the construction work of a commercial building located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant contract”). On September 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction costs of KRW 42,90,000 with respect to the construction work of the Seocho-gu Seoul E Studio (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the Second Contract”). B.

The Plaintiff completed construction works under each of the instant contract. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 38,00,000 in total,00,000 on November 24, 201, and KRW 38,000,000,000 on April 9, 2012. The Plaintiff paid KRW 7,000,000 on September 17, 2013 as the construction price under the instant contract, and KRW 8,00,00 in total, as the construction price under the instant contract, KRW 8,00,000 on October 11, 2013, and KRW 10,000 on November 13, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the unpaid construction price and delay damages to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff entered into each contract of this case between the head of the on-site management on behalf of the defendant and the registration director C, and the construction was completed accordingly.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff-type C, who uses the trade name of F, was awarded a contract, and the plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by C, and thus the plaintiff cannot claim the construction cost, and that the construction cost was paid to the plaintiff in accordance with the direction of C or C as the contractor.

B. The identity of the party to the judgment constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indication, and its objective meaning is made by the language and text indicated by the parties.