1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 58,258,780 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from November 19, 2015 to January 28, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On May 18, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation headquarters Seoul Development Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On July 3, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a standard subcontract agreement on construction business that specifies the contract amount of KRW 639,210,000 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant and the period from July 3, 2012 to March 20, 2013, to accept a subcontract for soil works during the instant construction (hereinafter “the instant soil works”).

On July 27, 2012, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to change the contract amount of the instant earth and sand into KRW 487,850,000 (including value-added tax).

C. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a standard subcontract agreement on construction business with the Defendant to accept a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction works among the instant construction works, setting the contract amount of KRW 223,080,00 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 19, 2012 to May 29, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant reinforced concrete construction” is referred to as “instant reinforced concrete construction,” and collectively referred to as “instant subcontract” in the said soil construction contract.

The Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction work around February 2013.

On February 28, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant subcontract, and the said notification reached the Plaintiff on March 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8, 10 evidence, Eul 3 through 7, 11 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received a blanket subcontract from the Defendant for the entire construction of the instant case. However, the Plaintiff prepared a subcontract form only with respect to soil and reinforced concrete construction, which is prohibited from a blanket subcontract under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the rest of the construction work was conducted in the name of the Defendant.

B. The ratio of the completed portion before the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of the instant construction work is 42.