1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 180,000,000 won against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing shipbuilding blocks and the business of repairing vessels, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the business of building and repairing vessels.

B. The Defendant was awarded a contract for construction of four vessels SB52, SB53, SB574, SB575-4, and SB575 (hereinafter “instant vessel”).

On May 6, 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the instant chemical tank contact construction (hereinafter “instant contact construction”) to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant delivered the SB52 vessel which was first built among the instant vessels to Daii Shipping.

However, on October 8, 2015, He sent to the Defendant a report on CB52 on CB52 on CB52 on the fact that equal heat occurred on the surface of the wall divided into the car in the CB552 chemical tank.

As a result, the defendant and the plaintiff confirmed that rupture has occurred on the contact part of the wall surface of the SB52 chemical tank, and confirmed that rupture has occurred on the contact part of the other vessel, SB53, SB574, SB575 vessel chemical tank. D.

From October 15, 2015 to November 7, 2015, the Defendant was judged to have failed due to the discovery of slag on the adjacent part of the instant vessel as a result of requesting KND to conduct a slag search and inspection on the front part of the instant vessel.

E. On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an explanatory note with the content that the Plaintiff would be responsible for the Plaintiff’s occurrence of KRW 240 million among them, by calculating the cost of correction for the defect in the adjoining part of the instant vessel as KRW 960 million (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

The main contents of the letter of this case are as follows.

As the representative of the Defendant’s goods subcontractor, the Plaintiff recognized a certain portion of the responsibility for the contact defect executed by the Plaintiff (SB52/574/575) and additionally incurred due to the replacement defect.