1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 65,226,542 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from March 1, 2012 to April 25, 2014.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be all filed;

A. Defendant C is a corporation with the purpose of real estate supply business, selling agency business, real estate service business, industrial complex creation and selling in lots, etc., and Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of building work business, engineering work business, etc.

B. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C to purchase and develop factory sites of 1,983 square meters for Pyeongtaek-si D site, and then construct a new sanction plant on that ground (hereinafter “instant construction” including both development of the aforementioned factory site and civil engineering works and new construction of a sanction plant, and the Plaintiff to sell the said factory site and sanction factory at KRW 740 million (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

C. After completing the instant construction through Defendant B on February 2012, Defendant C delivered the said land for factory and the instant sanctions to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 739,775,000 out of the purchase price to Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 9 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is primarily based on the premise that the instant supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 65,226,542 for unjust enrichment or damages arising from the failure or defect of the instant construction work.

B. In conclusion, as alleged by the Plaintiff, Defendant B actually carried out the instant construction project, and thereafter, Defendant B’s tax invoice was issued in the name of Defendant B.

Even if there are such circumstances and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize that the supply contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, as seen earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant C of this case.