1. The counterclaim claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On June 5, 2013, the Counterclaim Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Counterclaim Defendant on the condition that the interior and extra-out construction work is set at KRW 53,900,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from June 10, 2013 to July 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and paid KRW 11,00,000 as the down payment to the Counterclaim Defendant.

B. However, the Counterclaim Plaintiff rejected the use of a substitute title on the ground that the substitute title, which the Counterclaim Defendant raised with respect to the instant construction contract, was in progress by the Counterclaim Defendant, was serious, and sent a written notification stating the termination of the instant construction contract to the Counterclaim Defendant on July 4, 2013. The said written notification was served to the Counterclaim Defendant around that time.

2. Judgment on the assertion by the Counterclaim Plaintiff

A. The counterclaim, due to the cancellation of the contract, demanded the counterclaim Defendant to substitute the substitute number of the substitute number constructed by the counterclaim Defendant on the wall of the entrance and the outer wall, because it is extremely different from the color of other substitute number to be used on the funeral hall. However, the counterclaim Defendant rejected this request and instead, the counterclaim Defendant cancelled the instant construction contract in violation of the duty to supply construction materials under Article 11 of the instant construction contract, such as seeking substitute number of the substitute number to the counterclaim, and thus, the counterclaim Defendant is obliged to return KRW 11,00,000 paid as the down payment to its original state.

Therefore, each of the images of the instant construction contract Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including a studio number) is serious to the extent that the substitute car procured by the counter defendant could not achieve the purpose of the instant construction contract, and thus, violates the duty to supply construction materials.