1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the counterclaim are modified as follows.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that, except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance added the following details to the fourth 13th part of the judgment: â……§ 13: The court of first instance: (a) The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant against the defendant, (b) the defendant filed a counterclaim; and (c) the plaintiff's successor filed a claim for intervention in succession to the claim of the principal lawsuit.

The first instance court dismissed the principal claim, and partly accepted the plaintiff's successor's claim and the counterclaim's claim, which is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court as the plaintiff did not appeal against the principal claim.

Therefore, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the claims of the Plaintiff’s successor and the Defendant’s respective appeals, and to the counterclaim claims filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively.

Plaintiff

Succession Intervenor’s Claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work from the Defendant with a contract for KRW 1,965,00,000, and received KRW 1,421,00,000 out of the construction cost from the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid construction cost (i.e., KRW 1,965,000,000 in - KRW 1,421,000 in - KRW 1,421,00,000 in -) and its delayed damages, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor the unpaid construction cost and its delayed damages. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant concluded the instant construction contract with the Song GE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SEGE”) after cancelling the contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of the contract.