1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the counterclaim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except that of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[C]

3. Determination on a counterclaim

A. At the time of the instant construction contract, I, a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s assertion, promised to preserve all the costs invested in the construction project at the time of the instant construction contract, and the Plaintiff’s counterpart did not pay the construction cost upon the change to G, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s, and the Defendant promised to suspend the construction project on September 12, 2016, upon requesting the resumption of the construction project, G to preserve all the invested construction cost.

After that, the Plaintiff failed to pay the construction cost, and again the Defendant suspended construction on October 26, 2016. Accordingly, J and G, the president of the Plaintiff, agreed to make an agreement as stated in the evidence No. 4, and promised to pay the input cost.

In addition, G around February 13, 2017, it is difficult for Defendant H to immediately verify the content of the cost of equipment, tools, expenses, etc. under the construction cost input table (Evidence B No. 140). However, G signed and sealed the cost of materials to pay immediately.

Meanwhile, the Defendant invested KRW 545,851,155 in total of KRW 295,513,531 in the construction cost of the instant case for the field workers, KRW 64,929,093 in the material cost, and KRW 185,408,531 in the expenses.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the unpaid construction cost of KRW 198,851,155 (=545,851,155) - 347,000,000).

B. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant could no longer proceed with the instant construction work as the construction cost of KRW 6,00,000 per ton of the original contract while performing the instant construction work from June 2016, and on September 12, 2016, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 6,500,000 per ton of the volume exceeding 42 tons.