1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Basic Facts

On March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontracted contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with the Defendant who subcontracted the construction work of installing D on the Gangwon-gun B and C’s ground (hereinafter “instant D”) from NA, with the cost of the construction work of KRW 795 million (excluding value-added tax) and the date of completion fixed on June 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff commenced the instant civil engineering works and continued construction until June 9, 2014, and discontinued it. The Plaintiff received payment from the Defendant for the total amount of KRW 636 million by June 11, 2014.

On July 10, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant construction contract on the ground that the instant civil works were suspended for at least three days.

[Based on the ground of recognition] There was no dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5, 19, 26, 27 evidence (including the provisional number, and hereinafter the following), Eul 3, and 4 evidence, and design drawings (hereinafter the "first design drawings") which were the basis at the time of concluding the construction contract in this case as to the plaintiff's claim for the purport of the whole pleadings, and there was a problem such as that the cadastral boundary indicated is different from the actual construction site and the design of the cut part is erroneous.

Accordingly, in consultation with the employee E and the F who received an order for design service from the Defendant, the Plaintiff changed the design over three times, and G, the Defendant’s actual manager, also agreed thereto verbally.

The Plaintiff completed 90% worth of the instant civil engineering works according to the modified design drawings as above. As such, 78,705,050,000 (=799,5500,000 x 90/100 x value-added tax 110/100 x additional construction cost due to modification of design) against the Defendant.