1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's appeal and the defendant-Counterclaim claim filed in the trial are all dismissed.

2.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2017, the Defendant purchased 104 commercial buildings located on the ground D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) from C by the brokerage of licensed real estate agents B.

B. Around August 2017, the Plaintiff, a company running the water supply and sewerage system construction business, concluded a contract for the water pipe repair business with the Defendant, C, and B (hereinafter “instant construction business”), and the construction cost was to be paid KRW 2,100,000,000 in total from the Defendant, C, and B, and around that time, the said construction was completed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was awarded a contract with the defendant for the construction of this case and completed it, and the defendant is obligated to pay 700,000 won to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The construction work in this case was conducted differently from the quotation, and the contract in this case was lawfully rescinded in accordance with the Defendant’s written notice of termination of contract, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion solely based on the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Furthermore, the Defendant asserted that the contract in this case was concluded with the Plaintiff with the intent to take a heavy interest by taking advantage of the Defendant’s old-age with the aid or cooperation between B and C, and was made with the intent to take a heavy interest by taking advantage of the Defendant’s old-age,

3. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

C. Accordingly, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant’s contract price of KRW 700,000 and the Plaintiff’s claim against this, is an obvious date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the Plaintiff seeks.