1. All of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2012, the Korea Electric Power Corporation awarded a contract for the “C” (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the new comprehensive construction company (hereinafter “new comprehensive construction”) at KRW 312,843,095 for construction cost.

B. The Defendant was awarded a subcontract for construction of the instant construction from the new comprehensive construction, and the Defendant re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff on April 2013.

C. On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

On the other hand, the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Korea Electric Power Corporation have increased the price of the instant construction to KRW 798,017,000 on July 2013, and further increased to KRW 829,450,00 (excluding value-added tax) around August 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. At the time when the Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction was sub-subcontracted to the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the contents of the original construction and the construction cost have been changed, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant could not confirm the construction cost of the re-subcontract.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the remainder of the instant construction around September 2013, which was after the completion of the instant construction, as KRW 150,000 (excluding value-added tax).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 150,000,000 (=the remainder of KRW 150,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. On September 30, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the supply price of KRW 150,000,000 in relation to the instant construction project, value-added tax of KRW 15,000,00 to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff may be recognized by the statement of evidence A No. 1.

However, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 165,00,000 as the remainder of the instant construction project only with each of the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 13 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) The Plaintiff’s objection to the Defendant.