1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 165,636,263 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 14, 2016 to October 10, 2018.

Basic Facts

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together.

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with respect to the soil works, reinforced concrete works, and water supply and drainage works (hereinafter “instant subcontracted works”) among the “D Facility works” (hereinafter “instant construction works”) ordered by the Defendant by C, which were ordered by C.

On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to change the price of earth and sand works among the instant construction works into KRW 573,870,000, and KRW 1,247,070,000 on November 27, 2013, and KRW 260,70,000 on June 19, 2014, respectively.

The Plaintiff, from January 2014, filed a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the construction cost by demanding the Defendant to reflect the additional construction cost, claiming that the applicant for construction cost has been accumulated on the grounds of personnel cost, material cost increase, etc.

On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that it is difficult to complete the subcontracted project of this case by October 6, 2014, which is the completion date of the subcontracted project of this case, and that the delay is not a cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that it will accept the subcontracted project at the site

Accordingly, on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s on-site representatives determined the completed construction cost as KRW 426,369,739, 152,643, 314, and 191,787,085, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s on-site representatives demanded that the additional construction cost be reflected in the settlement of accounts for the instant subcontracted works. However, there was no settlement agreement by requiring the Plaintiff to reflect the construction cost in the said settlement of accounts.

On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the subcontracted project in this case and accepted it on the spot.

Accordingly, the Defendant, on October 10, 2014, conducted settlement of the construction volume and remaining portion of the construction until now to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is proceeding with the construction division.