1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is revoked, and the revocation part is applicable.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) the construction period for the construction of a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant building”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s ground from February 20, 2012 to June 30, 2012; (b) the construction price of the construction KRW 387,200,000; and (c) the rate of liquidated damages for delay to the Defendant’s delayed payment of KRW 3/100 of the contract amount; and (d) the contract amount was set at three percent of

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

Upon entering into the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to newly construct the instant building in the same manner as the D ground buildings and E ground buildings (hereinafter “base buildings”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, which had been built near the said construction site.

C. The Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant building on September 5, 2012, and completed registration for the preservation of ownership on October 15, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the party to the contract of this case is the contractor and the H is the contractor, and the plaintiff is not the party to the contract where the claim of this case can be filed because it is merely the guarantor of the contractor and the supervisor of the contractor.

The evidence No. 1-1 (Contract for Construction Work) is written by the Plaintiff as the mother of the Defendant, the contractor H, the contractor’s guarantor and the contractor’s supervisor, as alleged by the Defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant entered into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff and discussed the progress of construction of the instant building, and that the Plaintiff constructed the instant building, and that the Defendant paid the construction price to the Plaintiff was not disputed between the parties, or that the purport of the entire pleadings was neglected.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant are the contractors of the construction contract of this case.