1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 7,844,660 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from February 21, 2017 to June 1, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to contract housing repair works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with respect to housing buildings located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”).

The construction name: The construction period of D Housing Repair Works: From June 25, 2016 to June 2016, 2016, "2015" under the construction contract (Evidence A2) is a clerical error.

7. Contract amount by March 31: Method of paying construction cost of KRW 79,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) - Advance payment of KRW 30,000,000 (payment after the conclusion of a contract) - Payment of remainder portion: KRW 56,90,000 (payment after the completion of a project) - Payment following a work change: A payment following a work change shall be reflected in an increase or decrease of construction cost at the request of the project owner.

Scope of construction: see Written Estimate

B. The Defendant paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction cost during the instant construction work period.

C. From the end of August 2016, the Plaintiff was classified into additional construction works (14,150,000 won, such as non-explosive walls and blasting walls) and service details other than estimate (11,750,000 won, such as external sewerage and total pipes, floor waterproof construction, etc.) which were not included in the estimates of construction at the time of the instant contract with respect to the instant construction works, and then presented a written estimate to the Defendant to additionally claim KRW 14,150,000, which falls under the additional construction among them.

However, the plaintiff's method of construction, such as the above additional construction, indicated the complaint by the defendant, resulting in a big dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.

On September 14, 2016, the Plaintiff contracted the instant construction with the Defendant’s husband’s husband to a pro rata to a substantial part of the said construction work, and the additional construction upon the Defendant’s request is also carried out without additional personnel expenses, and left with only a part of the finishing construction, such as the construction on the market, etc.