1. A multi-family house project in Daegu North-gu, where the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) performed from December 2, 2012 to April 11, 2014.

1. Chief;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (principal claim) 1) newly constructed two multi-family houses in Daegu Northern-gu D and C on the land around December 2012, the Plaintiff is the Defendant and the construction contract with respect to the Changho-gu during the new construction work (hereinafter “instant Chang-gu Construction Contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant directly procured construction materials in the instant creative construction, and the Defendant made an oral agreement to perform construction works and receive personnel expenses only.

3) On December 1, 2012, the Defendant started the instant Changho Construction and completed construction until the end of February 2014. On April 11, 2014, the completion inspection on multi-family houses on the said land was completed. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled accounts by settling accounts for the instant Changho Construction and remitting KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account. 4) However, on August 13, 2014, the Defendant supplied KRW 14,341,254 to Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party Co., Ltd”) for the instant Changho Construction and thus, the Defendant paid KRW 4,440,00,000, such as the price of the said glass product, labor cost, and other construction cost, and thus, the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the construction cost as stated in the judgment of KRW 18,781,254.

B. The defendant's assertion (Counterclaim 1) brought favorable products from the non-party company, etc. at a low price in cash, and specialized in the glass construction. When the defendant applied for the purchase of materials, the plaintiff would pay the purchase price and pay the personnel expenses directly to the defendant. However, while performing the construction of the title of this case, while the plaintiff did not have money, the plaintiff would make a settlement of the price later if the defendant paid the cost on behalf of the defendant and paid the cost of the construction on behalf of the defendant. The defendant believed such promise of the plaintiff and is the defendant's pro rata.