1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim expanded from the trial, is as follows.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

A. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new house on the ground of C at Jeju (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 125,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from October 6, 2011 to February 2, 2012 (new section). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 80,000,000 on October 4, 201, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 125,00,000 on October 12, 201, and KRW 12,50,000 on October 6, 201, and KRW 25,000,000 on October 31, 201, and KRW 30,000 on December 20, 2011.

B. In the event that the Plaintiff was performing a new construction of a detached house pursuant to the said construction contract and completed the structural construction work, there was no mutual opinion between the Defendant and the Defendant on the issue of payment of the construction cost and the additional construction cost, the Plaintiff suspended the construction work on December 2, 2012 and demanded the Defendant to pay the additional construction cost on January 2, 2012. Accordingly, on January 4, 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to resume the construction without any justifiable reason while suspending the construction work.

However, on January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff did not resume the construction, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the construction contract will be terminated if the construction is not resumed within five days.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2012 without resumption of construction work, and the Defendant concluded a construction contract on May 3, 2012 with respect to the remainder of F and the instant construction work, and completed the instant construction work.

[Grounds for recognition] Without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10, and 12 (including provisional number), the purport of the entire pleadings as well as the ground for counterclaim claim by the parties concerned, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff alleged part of the foundation works at the defendant's request has been made as a mat method, and the 3,200,000, and the 1st wall was changed by 50m higher than the 50m higher than the 2,200,000 construction costs were additionally required, and 59,420 won on behalf of the defendant.