1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 151,158,50, and KRW 57,440,00 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s payment to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on July 30, 2013.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and 10 and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On June 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply and demand the housing site creation work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) in the 305,800,000 won (including value-added tax) for the first time, which is owned by the Defendant.

B. On June 2010, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction work, and the instant construction was suspended on September 201 through November 2011.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has ceased construction upon the Defendant’s request while performing the instant construction, and has received KRW 110,000,000 from the Defendant during the construction period until now.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 175,800,000,000 for the remaining construction cost (305,800,000 - 110,000,000 for the access road package work cost, which is the non-construction part), less the remainder of KRW 20,000 for the access road package work cost.

B. The part of the instant construction work executed by the Plaintiff in the summary of the Defendant’s assertion was entirely defective and thus, remuneration was impossible, and there was no part to be fulfilled before completion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost cannot be accepted.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost is acknowledged, the construction cost paid by the Defendant is KRW 114,400,000, and the amount of KRW 40,241,500 should be deducted as the price for the package work of the access road which is not constructed. Moreover, in addition, in addition to the access road packing work, the Plaintiff did not perform drainage works between the water supply and drainage pipe, the access road and the retaining wall, and the road side safety pen construction work, and thus, the Plaintiff should deduct approximately KRW 60,00,000 as the above construction cost.

C. 1) The fact that the instant construction cost was KRW 305,800,000 is as seen earlier, and the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 10, and 11 (including paper numbers) is written.