1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who is equivalent to the following amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above basic facts, the plaintiff has a duty to return to the defendant the over-paid construction price of KRW 7,870,000 ( KRW 191,00,000- KRW 191,000-3,870,00).

B. The non-construction part 1) The fact that concrete construction is not constructed on the right side of the right side of the concrete outer wall is not a dispute between the parties. D (hereinafter “D”).

According to the appraisal commission results and the supplementary appraisal results with respect to the Plaintiff, this part of the construction cost is recognized as constituting 617,00 won. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to return 617,000 won of the construction cost above to the Plaintiff. (2) According to the appraisal entrustment results and the supplementary appraisal entrustment results with respect to D, the fact that construction has not been executed on the left side and the construction cost is 4,775,100, and this part of the construction cost is 4,775,100. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff the construction cost above 4,775,100 won to the Plaintiff. (b) As to this, the Defendant failed to complete the construction work with the ground weak up to the cover for the retaining wall construction on the right side and complete the construction of the ready-mixed vehicle without entering the right side. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot be held liable to the Defendant.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not attributable to the failure of the defendant to execute construction over both sides, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the images of Gap evidence 8(s) (including the number of copies; hereinafter the same shall apply), the results of the appraisal commission to D, and the purport of the whole pleadings, Lesacon.