1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 24,900,179 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from December 3, 2014 to May 13, 2015.

1. The basic facts are: (a) around March 2013, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to conduct the verification of the construction cost of the housing unit C (hereinafter “instant housing”); (b) the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to grant a discount of the said amount; and (c) the Defendant requested a discount of the said amount; (d) around April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a housing construction contract for the purpose of remodeling the housing unit (hereinafter “instant construction contract”; (c) from April 15, 2013 to May 20, 2013, the construction cost of the instant housing unit (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and (d) the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million out of the construction cost under the said contract to the Defendant; and (d) the instant construction contract was suspended from the time on July 2013; and (e) the Plaintiff did not possess any dispute between the Defendant and the entire parties; or (e) the submission of evidence and evidence No. 1650, May 14, 2013.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim (the counterclaim shall be deemed first).

A. 1) With respect to a contract for construction works, where a contract for construction works has been rescinded and completed, even if the construction works have been completed, and the restoration to the original state has been considerably incurred significant social and economic losses, and the completed part is beneficial to the contractor, the contractor is obligated to deliver the building to the contractor as it is extinguished and the contractor is obliged to pay reasonable remuneration for the building delivered in consideration of the deterioration of the construction of the building, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu1751, Sept. 9, 1986; 88Da32470, Dec. 26, 1989; 93Da25080, Nov. 23, 1993; 93Da42320, Aug. 12, 1994; 194Da484, Apr. 15, 1994).