1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 9,952,576 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from March 19, 2015 to April 29, 2015.

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s repair work for neighboring houses damaged among the construction work for the ground-based C-building, Kimcheon-si, the Defendant ordered from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant repair work”).

As the Defendant completed the construction work after being awarded a contract, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,863,00 (including additional taxes) and the delay damages therefrom. 2) The Defendant awarded a contract for the construction work of the said house to the Silju Special Construction Project of Geumnam Special District District. The Silju Special Construction Co., Ltd. awarded a subcontract for the construction work of the said construction work of the said house to the Plaintiff, and the construction work of the said construction work of Kimcheon Special Construction Co., Ltd. transferred the ownership of KRW 102,201, which was completed according to the said new construction work of the said house, to the Plaintiff. Since there were the defect repair expenses equivalent to KRW 3,575,00 (including additional taxes) of the said 102, 102, 3,575,000, the Defendant shall pay the said amount and the damages for delay.

(b) Determination 1) Gap evidence 1, 2, and 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) Each of the descriptions and images of the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the instant repair work with the Defendant or the Defendant, a joint contract with the Defendant, who is a joint contract with the Defendant, not the main contractor of the Silju Construction Co., Ltd. (the addressee of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, is only the Silju Construction Co., Ltd.).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the construction cost incurred due to the instant repair work was set at KRW 5,863,00 or agreed upon by the method of settlement of actual expenses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was a defect repair cost equivalent to KRW 3,575,00 of the aforementioned 102 201 3,575,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

2. Matters concerning a counterclaim;