1. Of the judgment of the first instance, with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant), KRW 2,384,806 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto on December 2, 2015.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction of the glass (hereinafter “instant construction”) was subcontracted from the Plaintiff to the construction cost of KRW 37 million, and the Defendant: (a) ordered the instant construction works by mistakenly measuring the volume of the glass required for the instant construction; (b) placed a 287 square meter away from the wind, and discarded the entire quantity of the instant construction works; and (c) there was a defect in the part of the instant construction works that the Defendant performed by the Defendant during the instant construction. The Defendant claimed damages from the Plaintiff for KRW 12,825,666 [10,825,666 won [10,825,66 won [10,841,517 won [10,99,841,515 won]; and (d) the Plaintiff claimed for damages from the Plaintiff.

(=287 square meters x 34,291 square meters in glass + Value-added tax 984,151) + 2,00,000 won in relation to coworking and damages for delay shall be liable to pay the amount of damages for delay.

B. (1) Determination (1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 384,806 [1.218m x 1,585m x 8m x 34,291m x 34,06m x 1,585m x 8m x 8m x 34,291m x 34,581m x 34,581m x 34,581m x 8m x 8m 1,58m x 8m x 1,585m x 8m x 1,58m x 291m x 8m ), and damages for delay.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay damages and value-added taxes for the amount of glass placed in excess of the above 11.2218 square meters. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries of Gap 3 through 5, 9, and Gap 10 are not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s disposal of the glass placed in the Plaintiff’s place constitutes 287 square meters or that the Defendant is liable to pay value-added taxes to the Plaintiff.