The above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

In addition, the Defendants concluded an additional construction contract by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the progress of construction until the Plaintiff and the Defendants at the time, etc., and this agreement was explicitly agreed not to give rise to the issues. Therefore, they cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in lieu of the Plaintiff’s defect repair. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have exempted the Defendants from liability for defect repair solely on the ground that the contract for the additional construction was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit

B. According to the evidence mentioned above as to the claim for liquidated damages, "the last sentence of the contract for additional works (Evidence A No. 4) * the completion of the contract *

.. 8월 첫째주 !!'이라고 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 여기에 원고가 소장에서 추가공사비가 지급되면 2016. 8. 8.까지 공사를 완료하기로 합의하였다고 주장한 점 등을 보태어 보면, 원고와 피고는 공사기간을 2016. 8. 8.까지 연장하기로 합의하였다고 판단된다.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part of the claim seeking compensation for delay from July 9, 2016 to August 8, 2016, which is the day following the previous construction completion date, cannot be accepted.

C. According to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants, jointly and severally, filed a claim against the Plaintiff regarding the damages amounting to KRW 7,273,500 in lieu of defect repair and the scope and existence of the Defendants’ performance obligation from October 21, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to December 5, 2017, are 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 5% from the following day to the date of full payment.