1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) on 339,821.

1. On the premise, the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist.

A. On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for B service (hereinafter “instant service”) from the Defendant with the contract amount of KRW 649 million, contract deposit of KRW 9735 million, contract deposit of KRW 97350,000,000, and the contract period from November 23, 2012 to December 20, 2013. The subcontract document provides that the contract deposit shall be attributed to the Defendant against penalty and shall not be reduced.

In addition, where the instant service contract transfers rights and obligations under the contract without the consent of the other party, the other party may cancel or terminate the contract, and where the plaintiff re-subcontracts part of the business without the prior consent of the defendant in the performance of the instant service without obtaining prior consent of the defendant, the defendant may cancel the instant contract.

B. On December 24, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written notification stating that the instant service was not completed by December 20, 2013, which was the expiration date of the contract period, and that the instant service contract was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred rights and obligations under the contract without the consent of the project owner.

C. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 93,939,067 out of the contract amount of KRW 649 million.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion “the Plaintiff did not have transferred the right and obligation under the instant service contract without permission, and the Defendant’s notice of termination of the contract is null and void since all of the instant service was completed by the contract period. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remaining service price to the Plaintiff KRW 93,939,067 and delay damages therefor.”

B. We examine whether the rights and obligations under the instant service contract were transferred without permission, and the Plaintiff’s instant service to C et al.