1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 13,040,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from May 21, 2014 to January 13, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with a subcontract for the portion of early construction of multi-family house contracted by the Defendant as follows.

1) Supplementary construction work for multi-family house on B ground of Pyeongtaek-si and multi-family house construction work on D ground of Pyeongtaek-si (excluding value-added tax) KRW 35,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 45,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction work for multi-family house on land of Pyeongtaek-si E (excluding value-added tax) in Pyeongtaek-si and KRW 45,000 for the construction work for multi-family house, KRW 17,000 for the construction work, KRW 17,000 for the construction work, KRW 42,50,000 for the multi-family house construction, KRW 50 for the construction work, KRW 22,00 for the construction work, and value-added tax (excluding value-added tax) for the multi-family house construction on land of Pyeongtaek-si G (excluding value-added tax) separately)

B. The Defendant paid the construction price to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, the sum of KRW 164,610,000 between November 21, 2008 and February 8, 2013, was paid to the Plaintiff as the payment for the construction price of KRW 164,610,00 in total over twelve occasions.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued a letter with the Defendant’s seal imprinted (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) to the effect that the remainder of the construction price is KRW 24,00,000,000 from I, who had been employed as H as at the time of the search for the Defendant Company, and that the Plaintiff would fully repay it by the end of March 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 through 5, 8 (including Serial number), witness I's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the claim of this case. While the plaintiff claimed KRW 24,00,000 on the basis of each of the instant statements, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the witness I’s testimony, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant statements was accurately reflected in the payment of the construction cost through the accurate settlement process between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the representative of the defendant was involved in the preparation process.

Therefore, the above.