1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 10, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for remodeling construction works with the Plaintiff and the construction cost of KRW 120,000,000,000 for the land and eight household units on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. Fungi occurring in the part of the Plaintiff’s underground construction, and the Plaintiff demanded additional construction costs and rejected the repair of defects.

Accordingly, the defendant said that "I will pay to Iama. I will pay to Iama." to the plaintiff.

As a result, the defendant who was required to sell each household after completing the construction work at an early stage or to transfer the construction work, requested repair work to D and E who is another construction business operator.

C. On June 24, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”) that “When completing the entire construction work of Dog, underground entire, gym, gymnasium, and gymnasium, 10 million won shall be paid to the Plaintiff.”

However, the Plaintiff did not perform the construction work, such as the laging construction and partial lacing construction, and the part of the construction work occurred, but the lacul or myco has been changed by spathing, and the Plaintiff did not perform the repair work again after the completion of the waterproof Work.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, video of Eul evidence 1, witness E, witness testimony of Eul and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 10 million and its delay damages to the Defendant pursuant to the instant agreement.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not perform its duty of preference performance under the agreement of this case, such as Doing, underground entire, Doing, Doingle, and Doring Construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking monetary payment based on the agreement of this case is without merit.

B. The judgment on the counterclaim claim (1) The defendant is underground during the instant construction work.