1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

The reasons why the court should explain concerning this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications, and thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"3. Judgment" among the judgments of the court of first instance is amended.

The termination of the contract of this case - the location of the cause attributable to this case shall be modified as follows.

According to the facts examined prior to the termination of the instant contract - the obligation to transfer the ownership of a factory in which the cause attributable to the Plaintiff was located and the obligation to cooperate in the provision of a factory, the Defendant’s side, at the time of the instant contract, decided to immediately transfer the ownership of the relevant factory land to the Defendant and deliver relevant documents to the Plaintiff side (Article 5 of the Special Engineer Claim 5), and it appears that the Defendant provided the said land as collateral and agreed to appropriate for the construction cost of the instant case (see the Certificate of Special Engineer Claim 1.2-A No. 1 of the Special Engineer Claim 2). Nevertheless, the Defendant did not perform the said obligation

Furthermore, even when the agreement of this case was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 8, 2015, the Defendant transferred the owner of the instant factory land in the name of the Defendant to January 16, 2015, and agreed that the Plaintiff would have been able to receive loans from the bank as collateral and appropriate for the construction cost. The Defendant demanded the progress of construction, such as payment of file materials, to the Plaintiff without implementing the said agreement.

In this regard, the defendant argued that "the owner was agreed from the beginning to move the ownership of the land after the change of the owner was made by the Gosung-gun Office, and the procedure for the change of the owner was delayed, and thus the registration of ownership transfer was not made." However, in light of the text of the contract in this case and the agreement in this case, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is alone changed to the owner.