1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Incheon Metropolitan City shall be the Incheon District Court on October 19, 2012.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Incheon Metropolitan City Strengthening-gun (hereinafter “Strengthening-gun”) under which B (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) jointly receives KRW 1,019,232,00 of the construction cost. At the time of the said contract, the Plaintiff’s share was set at 51% and the Defendant’s share was set at 49%, respectively.

B. On the other hand, on November 22, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to take over the Defendant’s share and perform the entire construction of the instant construction project, and pay 15% of the amount calculated by deducting four major premiums from the construction cost of the Defendant’s share to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant submitted the completion system for the instant construction to the Reinforcement Group, and finally settled the construction cost of the instant construction and the instant construction as KRW 956,222,00 (wholly reduced).

However, on October 19, 2012, on the ground that there is a decision of provisional seizure against each claim for the construction price of the instant case and the creditor is unclear, pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, the court deposited the remainder of KRW 182,694,827 of the instant construction project with the Plaintiff or the Defendant (Seoul District Court No. 6956, Jun. 6, 2012; hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, as a representative contractor, the whole construction of the instant construction project should be executed in accordance with the instant agreement, the right to claim payment of the instant deposit should be vested in the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant did not fully pay the price to the sewage supplier, etc. of the instant construction project, the premise of the instant agreement was not satisfied or cancelled, and the instant deposit was the Plaintiff.