1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 15,252,227.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a new construction of housing located in Yong-gun C in Jeonnam-gun. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract signed between the original and the Defendant that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into the construction contract according to this Agreement and the separate design drawings and specifications.”

B. On January 3, 2014, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on the said land’s land, which was approved for use on January 5, 2014, for reinforced concrete structure (refinite concrete roof detached house) and multi-story detached house 119.97 square meters, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 127,000,000 as construction price until the closing of the instant argument.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 11, 12, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the main claim

A. On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for additional construction of retaining walls, floors, concrete, bricks, etc. on KRW 18,377,80 and delivered the said housing to the Defendant on January 3, 2014. Therefore, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the construction cost without complying with the agreement for additional construction cost as the Plaintiff did not comply with the agreement, even though the Plaintiff did not follow the agreement for additional construction cost, at KRW 10,177,80, which was not paid out of the total construction cost of KRW 137,177,80 due to the defect in the said housing.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff more than KRW 8,200,000 (=127,000,000 - 118,800,000) that the Defendant actually paid to the Plaintiff as additional construction cost. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

The defendant.