1. The construction contract concluded between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on April 11, 2012 and May 20, 2012 respectively.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. On April 11, 2012, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for the dental clinic construction located in the second floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding (hereinafter “instant hospital construction”).

(hereinafter “instant hospital construction contract”). (b)

On May 20, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the Construction Work in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 7 Dong 703 (hereinafter “instant apartment construction”).

(hereinafter “instant apartment construction contract”). C.

The Defendant performed all of the instant construction works, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 131,00,000 to the subcontractors designated by the Defendant or the Defendant for the construction cost under each of the instant construction contracts.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, E’s testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the instant hospital construction cost of KRW 80,000,000, and agreed to pay the construction cost actually invested by the Defendant as the construction cost in relation to the instant apartment construction.

The Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 131,00,000 to the Defendant under each of the instant construction contracts.

The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay construction cost under each of the instant construction works against the Defendant does not exist any longer.

B. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction price under each of the instant construction contracts to the Defendant.

The construction cost under each of the instant construction contracts is KRW 184,329,430 (the price for the instant apartment construction project in KRW 138,894,194) calculated by reflecting the actual construction cost and profit (the price for the instant apartment construction project in KRW 45,435,236).

Since the Plaintiff paid only KRW 131,00,000 among them to the Defendant, there is still a liability to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 53,329,430 (=184,329,430 - 131,00,000).

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the above-paid construction cost of KRW 53,329,430 and delay damages.