1. A plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) who ordered the payment in excess of the following amount among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff contracted the “C Middle School New Construction Work” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to the Defendant.

The important matters are as shown in the attached Form.

B. Until the end of July 2015, the Defendant continued the instant construction, and thereafter the progress of the construction was suspended.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) The Defendant, among the instant construction works, completed the construction on March 29, 2015, to complete the concrete removal theory of the first floor of the underground floor by March 29, 2015. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 450,000 for the delayed period of 125 days (i.e., 125 days x 1/100 x 3,600,000 x 3,600,000) for the delayed period (i.e., 125 days x 1/100 x 3,600,000). (ii) The Defendant suspended the instant construction after completing the concrete removal theory of the first floor of the underground floor.

After the discontinuance of the defendant's construction work, the plaintiff was required to complete the construction work by entrusting another business entity for nine months.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 982,80,000 for delay for the said nine months (273 days x 1/1000 x 3,600,000).

3) During the construction of the instant construction, the Defendant caused collapses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,00,000 (i.e., civil engineering supervision contract amounting to KRW 1,500,000 for ground construction cost of KRW 4,500,000 for ground construction cost of KRW 7,500,000) in order to implement the construction of household facilities due to the collapse in the course of cutting. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the said damages suffered by the Plaintiff. (ii) In the design plan for the instant construction that the Plaintiff first provided to the Defendant, there was no matter pertaining to the construction of household facilities.

2) On January 23, 2015, while the instant construction project was underway, the occurrence of the collapse of the cut surface. 3) The supervisor of the instant construction project, on February 9, 2015, was the Plaintiff.