1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay 153,229,49 won to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. Circumstances leading to the instant dispute,

2. The summary of the Parties’ arguments;

3. As to the defendant's claim for construction price

(a)request the cost of construction under an agreement;

B. (1) Claim 1) The parties’ assertion, 2) The reasons for this Court concerning this part are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) No. 4, No. 420, No. 15-17, “B. The Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the instant construction project on August 31, 2010 from D, and obtained the ownership of the said land from D on September 2, 2010. On September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a construction report on the instant construction project to change the owner from D to the Plaintiff from D, and on September 14, 2010, filed a construction participant report on the construction project commencement in the name of D, and on September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff received a construction completion report on September 16, 2010.”

Part 4 is to add "(based on recognition)" to "Nos. 6, 7, and 18 through 22 of the Evidence Nos. 6, 7, 18, and 22 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)", and "the results of fact-finding with respect to the So-called So-called So-young Office

3) Determination A) In full view of the Defendant’s construction scope (1) 2, 5, 7, and 8 evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 23 as well as the overall purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser E (hereinafter “appraisal”) under the instant contract, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract on the instant building with the Dodam C&C comprehensive architect office (hereinafter “Dodam C&C”) on August 2, 2010. Under the design business scope, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract on August 2, 2010. The Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s agent, at the request of G, issued the permit drawing, and the Defendant based on the permit drawing.