Of the lower judgment’s counterclaim claim, KRW 46,750,000 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from August 18, 2011.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below was just in holding that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) could not be deemed to have completed the instant construction on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof

2.The decision shall be made ex officio with respect to the damages for delay.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.”) provides that the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent in cases where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding which declares the existence of the obligation is rendered. If the obligor contests the existence or scope of the obligation and such assertion is accepted in the first instance trial, even if the assertion is rejected in the appellate trial, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground, so in such a case, the interest rate for delay damages as provided in paragraph

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21696 Decided July 8, 2010, etc.). B.

According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissed all the counterclaim claims of the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter "the defendant"), and the court below accepted all the counterclaim claims of the defendant by following the conclusion of the court of first instance. As long as the plaintiff's assertion was accepted in the court of first instance, such assertion shall be deemed to have a reasonable ground. Therefore, even if all the defendant's counterclaim claims are accepted, the court of first instance shall not apply the interest rate of delay damages as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Promotion Act until the date the court of first instance declares the defendant's counterclaim claims pursuant to

Nevertheless, the court below held that this case.