1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 20,277,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for KRW 20,277,00 and for this, from August 22, 2015 to January 13, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with regard to the construction period for the main body among the construction works for the construction works for the main body (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among the construction works for the construction works for the main body and the main body on the ground of the 729-1 and the 3 lots of land in Pyeongtaek-si, Bupyeong-gu, Seoul-do, and the Jindong Association (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from November 21, 2012 to February 17, 2013, and the construction cost was KRW 286,000,000 (including value-added tax). The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to inspect the actual volume invested in the construction after the completion of construction works and settle the construction cost.

B. The Plaintiff completed the structural reinforcement work equivalent to KRW 11,00,000,000, in addition to the construction work stipulated in the instant construction contract on the ground that it was in fact.

C. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to amend the contract with the Defendant to “from November 21, 2012 to February 17, 2013” the construction period of the instant construction to “from November 21, 2012 to April 17, 2013.”

On March 6, 2013, when an employee of Thai Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s partner, was destroyed by 16 roof materials of the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 3,938,00.

E. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 270,000,000 from the Defendant for the construction price under the instant construction contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obliged to pay the amount payable for the construction cost according to the result of the instant construction contract’s settlement of the volume, and the price for an additional construction project equivalent to KRW 11,00,000 shall also be paid. The Defendant’s employees, a subcontractor, are obliged to pay KRW 3,938,00 as damages for the part of the Plaintiff’s roof materials damaged.

An appraiser has recognized construction cost of KRW 234,785,00 as construction cost due to the settlement of volume, but the construction cost of KRW 32,720,00 (excluding value-added tax) is equivalent to the value-added tax.