1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the facts of the court of first instance and the judgment are acknowledged as legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance i.e., the evidence submitted in this court i., the evidence Nos. 11 through 13, and the witness G of the party

Accordingly, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons for the statement of this case. Thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The details of the 4th to 5th of the decision of the first instance are as follows.

“On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the total of KRW 4,680,00,00 of the Crerecers’ usage fees paid from November 27, 2015 to January 12, 2016; (b) the pumps’ usage fees of KRW 4,900,00,000 paid from November 2, 2015 to January 23, 2016; (c) the Screciron Line; (d) the Screcon Line; (d) the Crecon Line; (e) the monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000; (f) the monthly rent of container; (f) the cost of carrying-on work (eight (eight (eight) the cost of works based on reinforced concrete; and (f) the dismantling cost of KRW 1,440,00,000; and (f) the dismantling cost of steel Creconus shall be offset against each other.

However, even according to the defendant's argument, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entity that was engaged in the dismantling of Abane is not the defendant but C, and that C deduct deducts the construction cost to be paid by C from the construction cost to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction on November 30, 2015 is as seen earlier, and the facts of the recognition are as follows: (i) the following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant construction, i.e., the Plaintiff’s establishment of steel bars, etc.; and (ii) the retaining wall and the lower retaining wall collapseed after the completion of the said construction.