1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 56,562,560.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost under the instant construction contract is KRW 1.2 billion (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s unpaid construction cost of KRW 472 million (1,200,000 x 1.1) calculated on the basis thereof - KRW 848,00,000 = KRW 472,000 = in the complaint, and the Plaintiff’s claim that the construction cost of KRW 848,000 received from the Defendant on the date for preparatory pleading of the first instance trial was KRW 86,00,000 in the complaint, but the Defendant did not reduce its claim accordingly.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) According to each of the evidence as above, Gap evidence as mentioned above, Eul evidence as evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 26-1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 23, the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a contract statement of KRW 1.2 billion on or around February 21, 2011 and March 201, respectively (However, the date of preparation of the contract is indicated as August 1, 2010), Eul evidence No. 1-2). The defendant submitted a contract statement of KRW 1.2 billion upon receiving a loan from the bank, and the contract statement of KRW 1.2 billion on the completion of the construction of the construction of the case of this case is accompanied by the contract statement of KRW 1.2 billion on the basis of each of the electronic tax invoices issued by the plaintiff x KRW 1.2 billion on the basis of the fact that the contract price was approved by the defendant 1.2 billion on the basis of each of the payment of KRW 1.2 billion.

On the other hand, however, the evidence and evidence mentioned above are as follows, which are acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 1-1 and No. 4 as follows, i.e., the defendant, the plaintiff, and the defendant.