1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim of the principal lawsuit expanded at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together.

1. The reasons why the court's explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: "Nos. 69, 73, 94 through 102, 107 through 112, 119, 120, 136" and "No. 83, 84, 93 through 96, 113, and 114" are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of "No. 83, 84, 93 through 96, 113, and 114 of the judgment of the court of first instance" (No. 3, 14, 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the contract of this case was lawfully terminated, and whether the defendant's exercise of right to retention is legitimate

A. (1) Whether the instant contract was lawfully terminated or not) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant construction project agreed to be completed by the Defendant until October 31, 201, but the Defendant finally notified the Defendant that construction would be completed on November 30, 2012.

The Defendant requested an extension of the construction period on the ground that the construction was delayed due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, such as the Plaintiff’s delay in payment of alternative afforestation expenses, land compensation delay, frequent rain, and delay in relocation of obstacles, but the Defendant’s fault was erroneous.

In addition, even if the design drawing is modified in the contract of this case, the construction cost is not modified, and even though the contract amount is not adjusted, the defendant demanded the payment of additional construction cost due to the design modification.

In addition, even before the competent authority's approval of the implementation plan is granted, the defendant suspended most of the construction works since April 5, 2012 on the ground that the construction works cannot be carried out until the approval of the modification is obtained.

Accordingly, on April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract, following the Defendant’s delay of construction and the discontinuance of construction.