1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to 6, 8, 9, Gap evidence 7-1 to 3, and Gap's testimony as a whole:

The plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of construction and management business, and the defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of civil engineering, water supply and drainage, unresting, lighting, construction business, etc.

B. On November 11, 2013, Cheongcheon-gu Co., Ltd.: (a) sold the purchase price of KRW 1,322 square meters of land in Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu at KRW 1,540,00,000; (b) agreed to expand access roads to land outside Seo-gu and to perform road packing works; (c) accordingly, on May 30, 2014, Cheongcheon-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) agreed to set the construction price of KRW 61,00,000 for the unit work on the access road (hereinafter “instant civil works”).

C. B decided to construct a factory on the land of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and on June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the construction cost of KRW 338,400,000 for the construction cost of the above land (hereinafter “instant new construction”) to the Plaintiff.

A operating “E” performs activities as a responsible person in charge of human resources and heavy equipment management at the site of the instant new construction project, and on June 23, 2014, the Defendant was the Defendant at the Cheongcheon enterprise Co., Ltd.

As stated in the foregoing paragraph, the contract for the instant civil works ordered, while entering into a subcontract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”) with the phrase “the owner: the Plaintiff, E: Company A: the contractor: the Defendant,” and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal on the said “owner” column.

E. However, the Plaintiff’s letter signed and sealed the instant subcontract was arbitrarily stamped, rather than the Plaintiff’s corporate sense or employee, and eventually, A was charged with the charge that forged the instant subcontract and exercised it to the Defendant, and on January 26, 2015.