1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 50,594,856 won against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a construction contract for construction participation in B construction work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 530 million (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from March 13, 2009 to June 30, 2009, regarding B construction work contracted by Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Industrial Development”).

B. On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff received KRW 213,248,200 from the Defendant as well as received KRW 433,948,200 in total from around that time to November 16, 2009 as construction cost, and manufactured a sculpture (hereinafter “instant sculpture”). However, on the part of the military unit, the implementer of the instant military unit, the Plaintiff did not install the instant sculpture on the grounds of the civil petition and structural problems of neighboring residents.

C. After that, the Defendant, along with the development of modern industries, conducted a measurement of the instant sculptures from March 1, 201 to July of the same month, and settled the Plaintiff’s completed portion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 3, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of the witness D of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 9 and the purport of witness D of the court of first instance, the specific settlement details of the construction of the construction of this case, which reflects the modification of design, etc., are as shown in the attached Table, including the total amount of KRW 484,543,056 (including value added tax).

Recognizing facts, the testimony of Eul 2, 8 through 11, and 14 is insufficient to reverse the recognition only with the testimony of Eul 2, 8 through 14, and witness F of the trial.

Therefore, the defendant is not paid out of the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff 50,594.