1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount ordering payment.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the “M” stated in the instant contract is a clerical error in the “T,” the O and T are subject to the same work under paragraph (1) of the instant contract. Even if there is no clerical error, T and AG, AH, AI, AJ, and K, and other projects (hereinafter “other projects”).

(2) Since the total revenue of N, T and other projects falls under the “N and other projects after M” as stipulated in paragraph (2) of the instant contract, it is necessary to settle the revenue in accordance with the instant contract (i.e., total revenue amounting to KRW 4,767,660,163 - total revenue amounting to KRW 2,893,163,222), the Defendant should distribute to the Plaintiff the total revenue amounting to KRW 1,124,698,165 (= KRW 1,874,496,941 x 60%) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the said revenue under the instant contract.

However, since the Plaintiff’s pre-paid revenues amounted to KRW 477,316,50, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the accrued proceeds (i.e., KRW 1,124,698,165 - KRW 477,316,50) and delay damages.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 38,692,652 of the loss-sharing charge corresponding to 40% of the loss-sharing charge corresponding to 96,731,630 won for the Defendant. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s above claim, and the Plaintiff did not appeal against this.

(See, the Plaintiff asserted that the unpaid earnings accrued at the first instance court were KRW 722,744,797, and that the amount of such earnings was reduced in part at the appellate court’s second date for pleading, 2017, May 23, 2017, and the legal brief dated May 23, 2017. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not reduce the purport of appeal by asserting that the amount of such earnings was reduced in part as above.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1 is “M” as stated in the instant contract.