1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 92,697,00 and the amount of KRW 16 December 16, 2016.

1. On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff’s common basis for the principal lawsuit and counterclaim was determined by the Defendant as “the pipeline construction from among the five sections DPF’s special facilities for the farmers’ Office until February 12, 2015; the price was determined as KRW 181,50,000; the Plaintiff completed the said construction; and the fact that the Defendant paid the said construction price is no dispute between the parties.

2. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) requested the Plaintiff during the foregoing construction work to perform the additional construction work following a change in the construction contents, and the Plaintiff completed the said additional construction work in accordance with the changed terms and conditions upon receiving the Defendant’s order, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the amount of KRW 92,697,00 as a result of the consultation procedure on settlement of the said additional construction cost. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said additional construction cost. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the additional construction work is merely an “ordinary change” that had already been scheduled under the original contract for the construction work, and it did not agree on the settlement of the construction cost, and there was no difference in the actual settlement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

B. The fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not prepare a separate contract for the above Additional Works does not conflict between the parties.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the above additional construction cost at KRW 92,697,000, in accordance with the Defendant’s instruction, in view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged comprehensively based on the results of appraisal of the additional construction cost (including response to the commission of appraisal supplementation) of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-5 (including the paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the results of fact inquiry about Gap’s additional construction cost.

First, contract.