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

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim filed by this court.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, and even if the defendant submitted the evidence in the court of first instance to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is partly dismissed as follows, and the defendant’s additional argument added to this court is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following “additional determination as to the defendant’s argument”. Thus, this court’s judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1) Each statement “A” 1 to 4 evidence “B” (including a Serial number) of 5 pages 1 to 4 of the judgment of the first instance. 2) Each “D’s testimony” of 5th 4 and 7th 4, and 7th 7th 4 of the judgment of the first instance is considered to be “D’s testimony” respectively.

3) The August 17th of the first instance judgment “145,935 won” is deemed to be “145,395 won.” The Defendant’s additional determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) as to the main defense (the allegation of the non-committee agreement) was made orally with the Plaintiff after the construction of the instant case was completed. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant principal lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff failed to reach an agreement on the relevant non-committee and filed the instant principal lawsuit, the instant lawsuit was unlawful.

However, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to bring an oral action, the above main defense of the defendant cannot be accepted.

The defendant asserts that there is no cause attributable to the delay of the construction of this case, since the plaintiff did not pay the progress payment to the defendant properly and the defendant inevitably suspended the construction of this case.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, and 11, the instant construction is premised on the defendant's completion of liability.