1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 79,100,000 for the supervision service charges and damages for delay thereof, and the Defendant claimed payment of KRW 500,000 for the amount of damages due to nonperformance of obligation due to counterclaim, and damages for delay thereof. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim in its entirety.

In this regard, the defendant appealed only to the part of the claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the plaintiff's claim.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a construction supervision business, etc., and the Intervenor B was a person who served as the Plaintiff’s intra-company director.

The defendant is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

B. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on a construction project that newly constructs a house with a total of 110 households in G in total (hereinafter “instant construction project”) at G in the same time as the construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”), with the construction cost of KRW 15,847,866,00 (excluding value-added tax).

C. On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a supervision service agreement with the Defendant on the instant construction project (hereinafter “first contract”) and determined that the amount of remuneration of KRW 100 million (excluding value-added tax), the period of service from October 10, 2012 to February 28, 2014, and the period of construction extension to KRW 7 million per month (excluding value-added tax), and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, C, D, etc., who is its employee, were stationed at the construction site of this case from around that time.

F From August 2012, while continuing the instant construction from around July 31, 2013, F ceased the said construction on or around July 31, 2013. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to accept supervisors from the construction site of this case on the ground of the Defendant’s default on the payment of F, and completed the said construction on November 20, 2013.

E. The Defendant, on January 23, 2013, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff.