1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 50,898,036 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from February 25, 2016 to June 21, 2019.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be a same;

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for construction work that newly constructs steel structure of the second floor above the ground level C in Gwangju City in KRW 539,00,000.

B. On November 2015, according to the agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff changed the design of the instant construction works and carried out the additional construction works. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction works.

C. By January 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 550 million to the Plaintiff as the construction cost.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of KRW 76 million, which was not paid among them, as the instant additional construction cost was KRW 88 million in the principal lawsuit.

The plaintiff asserts that the period of warranty has exceeded or completed the repair of defects against the defendant's assertion of set-off and counterclaim based on the repair of defects.

B. The Defendant denies that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the principal lawsuit with respect to the additional construction cost of KRW 88 million.

Furthermore, even if there are additional construction costs, the Plaintiff asserts that the aforementioned additional construction costs are offset against the claim for defect repair costs equivalent to KRW 102,503,775 against the claim for the aforementioned additional construction costs. Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks to pay the aforementioned repair costs as a counterclaim.

3. There was an agreement between the Plaintiff’s occurrence and scope of claims for the additional construction cost, and the Defendant on the design change, and there was no dispute that the Plaintiff completed the additional construction cost in accordance with the above design change, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost accordingly to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff prepared a design change statement to the effect that the additional construction cost is required for KRW 88 million; and (b) obtained signature from the Defendant’s director D; and (c) the Plaintiff.