1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 301,133,202 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from November 30, 2013 to June 30, 2017.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s principal claim 1) The construction of the installation of the facilities of the 12-Yando-03 Western Islands (Yando, Yando, Yando, Cheongdo, and Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do - the construction of the Korean Armed Forces Jindo (hereinafter “instant facilities construction”) ordered by the Defendant as a construction company based on the Yando Do Do Do Do Do Do

Of them, the part concerning the instant facility construction was received in a lump sum (the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the entire construction of the instant facility was received in a preparatory document, etc. dated November 4, 2016, but it is based on the content alleged by the Plaintiff in the written complaint.

(2) However, the Defendant prepared an agreement on a lump sum subcontract with the Plaintiff, which is larger than the Plaintiff, and which is able to provide security in relation to the performance of the contract (hereinafter “sub-project development”), and the subcontract agreement entered into with the company holding a specialized license for each type of work in order to report to the ordering office is required. As such, regarding the instant construction of reinforced concrete (civil engineering) construction among the instant construction of the instant construction, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff with the content that contract for the construction of reinforced concrete (civil engineering) in the cost of KRW 1,148,90,000 with the Plaintiff holding the relevant construction license; ② for the construction of reinforced concrete (construction) the content that contracts for the construction of reinforced concrete (construction) with the price of KRW 1,483,90,000 with the topographical industrial development price of the relevant construction business; ③ the installation construction of the machinery and equipment (hereinafter “sub-public corporation”) introduced by the Plaintiff.

3) During the construction process of the Plaintiff, the construction contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff was terminated by notifying the termination of the construction contract unilaterally by the Defendant. Around June 2013, the Plaintiff suspended construction works related to the instant facility construction. 4) The construction cost that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant was the part on which the contract was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding reinforced concrete (civil engineering) among the instant facility construction works.