1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. On June 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a new building construction contract on the ground of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a new building construction contract on or around November 201, 201, with no value-added tax of KRW 3.4 million and value-added tax. The Plaintiff and the Defendants determined that the construction contract amount as a special contract is KRW 2.8 million per square, and that the said construction contract amount includes all expenses inside and outside the building sites, such as air conditioners, air conditioners, television laundry, drums, drumphonephones, straws, and drums, and dykes. 2) The Plaintiff completed the said new construction project.

3) The Defendants paid money to the Plaintiff by means of paying the construction cost directly to the subcontractor who paid the construction work or paid the construction work to the Plaintiff. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of the evidence No. 2, the witness F’s testimony and the purport of the entire

B. The key issue of this case is that the Plaintiff did not receive 14,130,000 won among the construction price paid by the Defendants.

The Defendants asserts that they paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 683,625,00 in excess of the contract price.

The Plaintiff asserts that among the construction costs claimed by the Defendants to be paid to the Plaintiff, the total of KRW 7.2 million, KRW 3.17 million, KRW 3.6 million, among the construction cost, KRW 1,2377,00, KRW 3.2 million, KRW 3.2 million, KRW 7,000, KRW 770,000, KRW 700,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 100,00,000, KRW 7,000,000, KRW 314,00,000, KRW 2,164,80, and KRW 8,000,00,000 for the purchase of L and Electronic Equipment, KRW 7,00,000,000, and KRW 7,000,000,00,000 for the construction cost cannot be recognized.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether or not the above construction cost is paid.

(c) the entire pleadings are made on the statements set forth in subparagraph 2 and witness F’s testimony.