손해배상
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 29,243,948 and as a result, from June 2, 2016 to July 13, 2017.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 16 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, the results of appraiser D's appraisal, and the overall purport of the pleadings.
On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendants by setting the construction period of the coffee set at KRW 159,500,000 (including value-added tax) from November 24, 2014 to December 30, 2014; and the Plaintiff’s construction cost of KRW 159,50,000 (including value-added tax).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) B.
The Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 143,550,000 to December 17, 2014.
C. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed that the remainder of the construction cost shall be KRW 5,500,000 paid as household payment, KRW 1,000,000 paid as design contract cost, KRW 4,50,000, and KRW 5,450,000, excluding KRW 4,000,000 paid as signboard payment, which were paid as design contract cost, shall be paid after the completion of construction, and KRW 2,00,000,000 shall be paid as additional payment for the construction of external transmission-based concrete, and the construction period shall be extended by February 7, 2015.
On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that the instant construction was completed after full payment of the construction cost.
E. According to the appraiser D’s appraisal that the instant construction project has defects or non-constructions as stated in the separate sheet with the exception of Nos. 4 of the appraisal amount calculation table, and that the repair cost will be 29,243,948 won, the said item No. 4 stated that the Plaintiff’s additional payment of KRW 2,00,000,00 for the reason that it was included in the original construction contract, and thus, the said construction project should be returned to the Plaintiff, because it was included in the original construction contract. As seen in the foregoing paragraph (c), the Plaintiff and the Defendants followed the construction of external hard-to-door concrete on January 26, 2015.