1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with respect to the construction of hot water supply and demand, etc. among the new construction works for the Defendant and the Songpa-gu Seoul building and one parcel (hereinafter “instant construction”). From August 2, 2017 to August 2, 2018, the payment method was 35,000,000 construction cost and the construction period from August 2, 2017 to the 10th of the following month.

B. On November 2017, the Defendant continued to perform the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff completed the remainder of the construction work.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,200,000 to the Defendant for the instant construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion voluntarily suspended the instant construction, and the Plaintiff had D Company E proceed with the instant construction. However, the Plaintiff’s labor cost of KRW 33,950,00, food cost of KRW 1,307,50, and labor cost of KRW 36,357,50,000, and labor cost of KRW 1,100,000, and KRW 44,557,500,000, were required for the instant construction (i.e., payment of KRW 8,200,000).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 9,557,500 (i.e., KRW 44,557,500 (= KRW 35,000), which occurred due to the discontinuance of the instant construction work.

B. The facts that the Defendant suspended and terminated the instant construction work as seen earlier, but there is no evidence to prove that the instant construction work was suspended due to the Defendant’s fault (the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant construction work was suspended due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the construction cost under the instant subcontract). The Plaintiff’s claim premised on the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation is without merit.

3. As to the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s total personnel expenses incurred in relation to the instant construction project are KRW 22,090,000, and the Plaintiff has so far August.