1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 387,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from March 1, 2016 to January 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of the construction business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of livestock distribution business.

B. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to newly construct three-story neighborhood living facilities of the steel structure (hereinafter “instant building”) in the area No. 8-6, 6-2, and 9-1, a reasonable north-ro, Cheongju-si, U.S. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant building and delivered it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 6

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The construction cost set forth in the original contract of this case was KRW 1,382,700,000 (including value-added tax). After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to finally change the construction cost of the instant building, including the additional construction cost, to KRW 133,100,000 (including value-added tax) (i.e., the total construction cost of KRW 1,515,80,000 (= KRW 1,382,700,000) and then (ii) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to finally change the construction cost of the instant building, including the additional construction cost, to KRW 1,505,00,000,000).

Until July 2016, the Defendant paid only KRW 1,118,000,000 among the construction price to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment amount of KRW 387,00,000 (=1,505,000,000 - KRW 1,118,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1 did not have entered into an additional construction contract with the Plaintiff, and the construction cost stipulated in the instant contract is KRW 837,100,000 (including value-added tax). Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any obligation to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, as it repaid to the Plaintiff in excess of the construction cost stipulated in the instant contract. 2) Even if there remains any obligation to pay the construction cost under the instant contract for household affairs, the building of this case is occurring in the ceiling.