1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 6,681,137 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from November 22, 2013 to August 12, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 11, 2011, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant for the part of the construction work of the Dap Complex Construction Work on the ground of the Dosan-si and 2 lots of land, which the Defendant contracted from B.

hereinafter the above D filling station is called the “instant filling station,” and the above D filling part is called the “instant earth and sand work.”

In addition, the above subcontract is called the subcontract as of July 11, 201.

(2) At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively set the subcontract price of KRW 231 million (including value-added tax) and the warranty period of defect liability for each two years. B. From July 27, 2011 to April 20, 2012, the Defendant paid all the Plaintiff the said subcontract price of KRW 231 million. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff completed the instant sub-construction before the Plaintiff is paid the subcontract price in full. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff completed the instant sub-construction before being paid the subcontract price in full. 【Recognition-based grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute, and the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 2 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) are included.

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, after concluding the subcontract as of July 11, 201, the Defendant or the owner of the building performed additional construction works equivalent to KRW 69,683,792 at the request of the Defendant or the owner of the building, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said additional construction costs to the Defendant.

B. Determination 1) In order to claim the additional construction cost against a contractor in addition to the agreed construction cost set out in the contract, the legal doctrine contractor must prove that there was an agreement to pay a separate construction cost for the additional construction work, such as the conclusion of a modified contract to increase the contract price, in addition to the fact that the additional construction work not included in the contract is executed, barring any special circumstances. Unless there is such assertion, the amount of the construction cost is or at least the amount of the additional construction work in light of the ordinary method set forth in the contract.