1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request on March 5, 2017, did not pay 3,200,000 won for the construction work. Around April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff did not receive 3,50,000 won for the construction work.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 6.7 million (= KRW 3.2 million) and damages for delay.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of a claim equivalent to the above amount as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

2. Determination on the cause of the counterclaim

A. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 80 million on January 11, 2016, KRW 10 million on July 11, 2016, KRW 170 million on July 13, 2016, KRW 4 million on July 13, 2016, KRW 500,000 on September 23, 2016, KRW 1 million on September 26, 2016, KRW 100,000 on October 25, 2016, KRW 350,000 on May 29, 2017, KRW 300,000 on the difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s damages for delay.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the money received from the defendant is not a loan that is not a reason for receiving the money, or that is received as the price for vehicle use, or that it is not a loan that is paid for the interior of the apartment living in the defendant or for the purchase cost of the household, but a claim of the defendant

B. The fact that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 33.5 million from the Defendant and remitted the total of KRW 3.0 million to the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, does not have any dispute between the parties.

However, the burden of proof on the conclusion of a monetary loan contract is asserted its effect.