A. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a remodeling construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendants engaging in remodeling business, etc. with E around May 1, 2014, under which the Plaintiffs agreed to provide for the total construction cost of KRW 43 million (the additional amount shall be deemed nonexistent, and value-added tax shall not be paid in cash, while the value-added tax shall be separately paid in cash) as to the housing located in the racing-si, which is jointly owned by each of the respective shares of 1/2 (hereinafter “instant housing”). and until June 15, 2014.

B. The Plaintiffs paid KRW 35 million to the Defendants, and Defendant D demanded the Plaintiff to pay the additional construction cost on or around June 5, 2014, and thereafter, the remodeling work did not run around that time as disputes arise over the existence of the additional construction cost.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the claim of this lawsuit, Gap evidence No. 10 and the purport of the argument, among the remodeling construction works under the instant construction contract, the defendants failed to perform each construction item in the attached Table No. 1 "unconstruction cost table" among the "Unconstruction cost table of the housing of this case" among the remodeling construction works under the instant construction contract. According to the appraisal conducted in the preservation procedure of preservation of evidence No. 2014Kak301 of this Court, the repair cost of the above unconstruction portion was 22,198,000 won, and the repair cost of the defective portion was 704,000 won. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 10 of the defective portion Gap among the repair cost of the appraised defect portion, the repair cost of the defective portion was directly labor costs.