1. From July 23, 2015 to October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 2,025,520 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to receive a contract with the construction cost of KRW 200,000,000 for the construction work (excluding value-added tax, KRW 200,000 for the first down payment, KRW 30,000 for the second down payment, KRW 50,000 for the third end payment, KRW 30,000 for the fourth end payment, KRW 40,000 for the fifth, KRW 40,000, KRW 40,000 for the third end payment, and KRW 40,000 for the remainder payment after the completion of construction).

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 168,300,000 from July 15, 2013, while carrying out the instant construction project, but requested the Defendant to pay the construction cost by increasing the construction cost on or around July 15, 2013, and the Defendant did not accept it, and the Defendant directly concluded the instant construction project at its own expense.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 12 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff suffered losses from the plaintiff's failure to obtain 83,000,000 won of the profit equivalent to the construction cost that could have been earned when the defendant completed the construction of the plaintiff's construction of this case as a guardian by suspending the plaintiff's construction of this case without any reasons. The defendant asserts that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above damages amounting to 83,00,000 won and damages for delay.

B. The plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the increase of construction cost between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, such agreement cannot be acknowledged. As seen earlier, the plaintiff requested the defendant to increase the construction cost, and the defendant did not accept it. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek compensation for damages incurred to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff's suspension of construction work is not a matter of course. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Counterclaim.