1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing both the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant and B and the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff.

As to the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff and the defendant have appealed to the whole of their lost parts, but during the course of the trial, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn his appeal.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, only the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim against the plaintiff is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, the Defendant asserts that the counterclaim of this case was unlawful, on the premise that, as the instant counterclaim of this case, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of the unpaid amount out of the construction cost due to the nature and height of the instant building on the premise that he was in the position of the contractor who received construction works for the elderly facilities (referring to one reinforced concrete building with the ground floor of 2 stories and the total floor area of 369.94 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 315.4 square meters wide from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have a contractual party to the construction contract for the instant building, and the Defendant’s counterclaim was filed by a non-party to the construction contract.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and must be proved through the deliberation of the merits whether the right to demand performance exists

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394 Decided October 7, 2005, etc.). Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant asserted that he received the construction work of the building of this case from the Plaintiff and filed the counterclaim in this case, the above reasons cited by the Plaintiff are merely matters to be determined as the existence of the Defendant’s claim within the relevant area, and the matters to be determined as the existence of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the counterclaim in this case are not matters.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

(a) This part of this Court’s basic facts.