1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) at KRW 350,548.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to complete the instant construction work by setting the construction period from June 4, 2013 to June 20, 2013, with the Seoul Gangnam-gu Office for the Rotterdam (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) as the construction contract amounting to KRW 58,00,000 (additional tax separate).

B. The Defendant paid all of the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that, while the construction of this case was in progress, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 19,390,000 remaining 19,390,000, after deducting the construction cost of the slot Pock which the plaintiff performed in the construction of this case from the above additional construction cost, after replacing the substitute tin with the substitute tin more than the estimated price of the construction of this case, and further adding the fire fighting construction cost of KRW 20,590,00.

B. Determination is based on the items of Gap evidence No. 2, which the plaintiff submitted as additional construction specifications.

1. The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 9,94,00,00, in total, from the additional construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff, such as the marine ground table replacement works, the replacement of sea ground plates to its substitute stone, studio-building reconstruction works, food-in-house reconstruction works, sea ground reconstruction works, and installation works, etc. from a wall lurging to a wall.

The plaintiff did not dispute between the parties in terms of the facts that the plaintiff constructed the sea table as a proxy, and the fact that the registrar was installed as LED. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was an additional construction agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to each of the above construction works alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's above assertion is no other evidence to support it.