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

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the purport that the Defendant will receive the construction cost of KRW 530,000,000 (including surtax) and the construction period from September 10, 2012 to January 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, witness C’s testimony, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Although the Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s principal claim, constructed the instant building in accordance with the instant construction contract, there was a defect equivalent to KRW 2,500,000, which occurred in the instant building, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 2,500,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Only the testimony of the witness C and the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9 are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that defects occurred in the building of this case constructed by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. 1) In concluding the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 7,00,000 out of the refund of value added tax to the Defendant when the Defendant pays the Plaintiff’s additional tax on the instant construction contract on behalf of the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant spent additional construction costs of KRW 2,80,000 due to leakage incurred in the process of establishing air conditioners, and paid additional costs of KRW 20,570,000 using high-class materials more than those scheduled to be required by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed to return KRW 7,00,000 to the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the testimony, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 of the witness C, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.