1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A were 125,635,581 won and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B were 94,351,540 won and 94,351,540 won.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs contracted to the Defendant the two new construction works for urban-type residential housing (hereinafter “instant construction works”) under the following: (a) the individual construction works have been implemented; and (b) the individual construction works have been contracted to the Defendant.

D Construction of “E” Building Construction Work (2) for Plaintiff A’s construction of the “E” Building Construction Work (2) and the “E” Building Construction Work: 233 square meters; and 47 square meters: 191 square meters; and 33 square meters, Plaintiff B asserts that the area of the parking lot actually contracted is merely 22 square meters.

However, the calculation table of the area of the first floor (A No. 10) on the ground of the second construction works required by the Plaintiff B based on this appears to have aggregated only with the area of the parking lot within the boundary of the building. Since the ground floor plan (the second upper part of the appraisal document No. 813) on the first floor (the second upper part of the appraisal document) contains a parking surface that can park more than five additional vehicles outside the boundary of the building, 33 square meters based on the weather and appraisal results are recognized as the parking lot area.

It is an amount calculated on the basis of KRW 3,700,00 per the contract price for construction works, and KRW 1,850,00 per square meter for parking lot construction costs.

Construction cost was KRW 3,500,000 per square year, and the Defendant, including household products and households, had increased to KRW 3,700,000 per square year while engaging in the construction of so-called “speach option.”

949,050,000 won construction period of 767,750,000 won from October 30 to October 30, 2012; or on October 30, 2013 from February 15, 2013 to February 15, 2014; and

B. The Defendant commenced the instant construction work around the commencement date of each of the above construction works, but suspended the construction work around March 1, 2014.

The Plaintiffs made a verbal request for the resumption of construction to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not comply therewith, and urged the resumption of construction in writing from April 29, 2014.

However, the defendant still responded to the purport that the suspension of construction on May 8, 2014 is due to the payment of the price by the plaintiffs.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs indicated “H” as “H,” and also indicated as “stock company” as to other companies.