1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is only KRW 72 million against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul 5, and 19 as to the claim of this lawsuit, the defendant is a company established for the purpose of assembling and manufacturing vessel composites. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing vessel composites. The defendant's business was conducted in the manner of receiving orders from the actual manufacturer, and the defendant's business was completed, ② T-BAR steel framed produced by the defendant, RX491K CASING production, etc., which was ordered by the defendant, but the plaintiff (D company) was decided to undertake construction by succession to the status of Eul without the payment of the construction cost, and the defendant consented thereto. ③ The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff's completion of several main works from the defendant, such as the manufacture of RX491 KHD AIL production, and that the plaintiff's payment of construction cost was 147,495,200 won, and the defendant's payment of construction cost was 300,000 won,00 won paid to the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Therefore, as requested by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay 72 million won for the remainder of the construction project and damages for delay after the date of delivery of the complaint.

As to this, the defendant's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7 was prepared by duress, and the defendant alleged that he did not have any obligation to pay the construction price to the plaintiff. However, there is no reliable evidence as to the fact that the above documents were prepared by duress, and further, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable since the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above fact

2. The defendant's assertion about the counterclaim was the original defendant's employee.

Nevertheless, around February 2013, the defendant's employees were subject to resignation and occupation, and they also resigned.