1. The part concerning the claim for the agreed amount among the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the claim for agreed amount

A. In the lawsuit of this case where the Defendant promised to pay KRW 88,515,238 to the Plaintiff because the Defendant failed to complete the contracted construction work properly, and the Plaintiff sought the agreed amount, the Defendant asserted a set-off against the Plaintiff as an automatic claim in the Ulsan District Court 2010Kahap9029, U.S. District Court 2010, U.S. 9029, which the Defendant raised against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount by the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. On the other hand, Article 216(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a claim claiming a offset is not established, the judgment on whether the claim claiming a offset is not established shall have res judicata effect only on the amount set up against the set-off.” Thus, in a case where the set-off claim is accepted by making a substantial decision on the existence of the automatic claim in the preceding lawsuit, it is unlawful to make the same claim with the same claim with the same claim with the same claim arising out of res judicata effect after the existence of a thickness with the passive claim different from

C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statement No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, respectively.

(1) On April 8, 2009, the Defendant received each contract from the Plaintiff for the installation work of 154,000,000 won for D gas stations capital and hazardous substances (hereinafter “the primary construction work”) located in Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu, and for the installation work of 139,959,339 won for the F gas stations capital and pipes production work located in Ulsan-gun E (hereinafter “the secondary construction work”).

(2) After completion of the first and second works, the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant the portion of the construction cost that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant inflicted damages on the Plaintiff by using defective products, totaling KRW 63,015,238, and the unpaid portion of KRW 25,50,00,000, to the Defendant.