1. On the merits of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff claimed a counterclaim seeking the payment of unpaid wages, such as the amount equivalent to the difference between the construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff and the remainder of the construction cost payable to the Defendant, ② Boyangyang, ③ additional labor cost due to air delay, ④ unpaid wages. The Defendant claimed a counterclaim seeking the payment of unpaid wages, and only the portion of the claim for the reimbursement of unpaid wages in the principal lawsuit was accepted, and the counterclaim was dismissed, and it is evident that only the Defendant filed an appeal.

Therefore, the part of the claim for reimbursement due to the payment of unpaid wages and only the counterclaim is subject to the judgment of the court.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant on October 31, 2012, with the amount of construction cost of KRW 53 million and the date of completion of the construction work, among the construction works for the construction of the land neighborhood living facilities and multi-family houses located in Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “instant framework construction”) among the construction works for the construction of the instant aggregate living facilities and multi-family houses.

B. As the Defendant failed to complete the instant structural construction by the agreed completion date, on November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant for the completion of the instant construction cost, and received a letter from the Defendant that he would complete the remaining construction.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

3. As to the determination of the claim for the amount of compensation following the payment of unpaid wages, the Plaintiff did not pay the labor cost of KRW 30 million for the steel workers from September 2012 to the above time, even though the Defendant received the payment from the Plaintiff for the first time to October 31, 2012, and the Plaintiff paid the labor cost of KRW 5,69,660 for the steel workers, such as Nonparty C, D, and E, in lieu of the labor cost of KRW 5,69,660. Thus, the Defendant should pay the said amount as the indemnity to the Plaintiff.