1. Of the part concerning a counterclaim against a judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the amount ordering payment next to that of the judgment;

1. As to the part cited in the instant case, our court’s explanation is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, inasmuch as Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the term “instant amendment agreement” in Section 18 of the first instance court’s judgment concerning the main claim shall be deemed to be “agreement,” and the judgment on the counterclaim claim shall be deemed to be “agreement,” and it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the construction completion period of the instant construction contract to February 5, 2015, and there was no agreement on the extension of the construction period thereafter. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not complete the construction by the said deadline pursuant to Article 7(1) of the instant construction contract. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for delay calculated at the rate of 179,388,50 won (the contract amount 91.45 million won x 0.019 days x 0.199 days) and damages for delay (the Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for delay 1,040,273,300 won for delay on the first 1,54 days x 24, 2015) from February 6, 2015 to August 24, 2015, which was served by the Defendant as a duplicate of the instant written complaint, but only part of the counterclaim 19 days were appealed.

(2) On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work under the instant construction contract was completed by submitting the completion system to the Defendant.

In addition, in the instant notification, the Defendant demanded only the instant additional construction without mentioning the portion of the construction work performed under the instant construction contract, and the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for delay is without merit, as it completed all of the instant additional construction work by supplementing and submitting the completion documents on June 22, 2015 throughout this frame.

B. Whether the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant construction contract was completed or not, the Defendant still did not complete the construction work under the instant construction contract.