1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 340,137,230, and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. As to the counterclaim, we examine ex officio whether the counterclaim in this case is legitimate.

The Plaintiff filed the instant principal lawsuit on November 1, 201, and the Defendant served with its duplicate on November 16, 201, and the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim seeking compensation for delay damages, etc. only after the lapse of about one year from that date to December 12, 2012. The instant principal lawsuit is obvious on the record that the pleadings were concluded on December 13, 2012, which is the day following the date when the Defendant filed the counterclaim.

Therefore, in order to determine the counterclaim of this case, additional hearings shall be conducted by resumption of pleadings of the principal lawsuit of this case. Thus, the institution of the counterclaim of this case is unlawful because it substantially delays litigation procedures of the principal lawsuit, which does not meet the requirements under Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the principal lawsuit

A. On July 2010, the Defendant’s tenement house on the fourth floor above ground (hereinafter “instant tenement house”) on the two lots outside Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff around July 2010.

A) A contract is made for the new construction cost of KRW 1,912,00,000 for the construction cost, and the agreement was made regarding the payment method of the construction cost as follows. At the completion of the aggregate of the second floor, KRW 150,000 shall be paid for the new construction of the instant apartment house and the new construction of the C apartment house. Within 15 days after the completion of the aggregate of construction cost (within 15 days). The remainder shall be paid within 15 days after the completion of the aggregate of construction cost (within 15 days). The Plaintiff completed the aggregate construction work up to the fourth floor of the instant apartment house on June 201.

3) Meanwhile, the Defendant paid 130,000,000 won out of the construction price to the Plaintiff. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the video of Gap evidence 5

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant already received the construction cost of KRW 573,60,000 (= KRW 1,912,000,000 x 30%), barring special circumstances.