1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The scope of the judgment in this court is the principal claim, asserting that the Plaintiff received a new construction of multi-household house from the Defendant, and filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of the unpaid construction cost and damages for delay thereof. Meanwhile, the Defendant, as a counterclaim, asserted that, as the Plaintiff Company I, a company identical to the Plaintiff, borrowed money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above borrowed money and damages for delay.

As to this, the first instance court acknowledged the contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the main lawsuit, but accepted part of the plaintiff's claim on the main lawsuit by recognizing the deduction of the construction cost claimed by the defendant in the unpaid construction cost claimed by the plaintiff, and ② as to the counterclaim, the legal personality of the plaintiff and the defendant I was dissolved.

The plaintiff and I rejected the defendant's counterclaim on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and I are corporations practically having the same legal personality.

In regard to this, the plaintiff and the defendant filed each appeal against each of the judgment against each of the parties in the judgment against the principal lawsuit of the first instance (the defendant's counterclaim was all dismissed, but the defendant did not appeal against it), and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had partly changed the cause of the instant lawsuit as follows.

(See, on October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant around June 2012, and agreed to sell and distribute the profit by selling multi-household housing after the Plaintiff and the Defendant constructed multi-household housing as an executor. However, the Plaintiff actually constructed multi-household housing.