1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance, KRW 20,593,432 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Conclusion of construction contract and payment of construction cost

A. On October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the construction work of constructing the neighborhood living facilities of the third floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the land outside Gangseo-si C and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant building”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that the contractor’s name should be “D” rather than the Plaintiff, for the construction work period of KRW 561 million (including value-added tax) and for the construction period from November 1, 2007 to January 30, 2008.

B. Around June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction, and at that time delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 536.4 billion out of the price of the instant construction work.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the argument as to whether to increase the price of the instant construction project as a whole, the plaintiff defendant alleged by the party to the lawsuit as to whether to increase the price of the instant construction project at the time of the initial contract. However, the plaintiff defendant set the construction price as KRW 561 million at the time of the initial contract, but thereafter, he decided to change the title of the instant building into a double window and make an additional construction, and then, he increased the construction price as KRW 572 million.

The Defendant’s construction cost of the instant case is KRW 561 million, as it was originally agreed upon, and the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s double window and the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s double window was also included in the aforementioned amount from the beginning. As such, there was no increase in the construction cost as KRW 5772 million.

Judgment

On October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff received the instant construction work from the Defendant in the name of “D” for the construction cost of KRW 561 million, as seen earlier, and the Defendant’s certificate No. 2 [Article 5-1 of the Evidence No. 5-2] is the same as the Defendant’s report on the change of purification tank (Evidence No. 51 of the Evidence No. 5-2) prepared by the Defendant in the name of the Defendant in connection with the instant construction, and the standard contract form for private construction works (Evidence No. 52 of the Evidence No. 52, etc.).