1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shared the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with a view to KRW 19,00,000,000, and with respect thereto from January 12, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that performs construction design and supervision.

Defendant Company is a company that engages in real estate development business, and Defendant C is the representative of Defendant Company and the audit of Company D (hereinafter “D”) as the representative director of Defendant Company, and Defendant C is the parent of Defendant C, and Company F, the inside director of D’s representative, are the children of Defendant C.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into the instant design contract with the Defendant Company, G, H, and I, and five parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) 4-story apartment units (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the ground that the contract amount for the design service of the 66 million won (in the event of a contract separate from value-added tax, 10 million won at the time of commencement of the contract, 20 million won at the time of application for permission, 10 million won at the time of commencement of the contract, 26 million won after the inspection of use, 26 million won after the completion of the said service within 40 days after the contract, and 12.5/100 per day after the date of inspection of use, and 3,635.712 square meters, hereinafter “instant construction”) was immediately stipulated in the design contract for the design service of the Plaintiff on the ground of natural disaster or other unavoidable reasons (excluding delay in the event of a natural disaster).

(hereinafter “instant design contract”). C.

1) The first application, permission, and approval for partial use of the construction permit 1) However, in the case of the instant construction project, if all nine multi-unit houses are filed simultaneously, there was a concern about the width of access road pursuant to the relevant laws, etc., and the Defendant Company did not acquire the ownership of the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company divided the instant land into three multi-unit houses, and applied for the construction permit in three separate units, but the Plaintiff, G, H, and I decided to apply for the construction permit as above in the name of G, H, and I, which are the landowners of the instant land. 2) The Plaintiff, G, H, and I, around July 2015, each of the multi-unit houses on the fourth and fourth lots of the instant land.