2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si D, awarded a subcontract to the Defendant for a painting work among the construction works for urban-type residential housing (hereinafter “D”) at KRW 88,550,000 (including value-added tax) for the construction work, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay an additional construction cost of KRW 5 million.

B. The Defendant completed D Corporation around July 2016 under the above contract, and the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant KRW 20,000,000,000, out of the said contract price of KRW 93.55 million.

C. The Plaintiff prepared a contract for construction with E (hereinafter “E”) with a content of subcontracting a painting work among the construction works of the new apartment units on Pyeongtaek-si F ground (hereinafter “F Corporation”). D.

The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of D and F work price of KRW 28,80,00 [=D accounts payable for construction and additional work price of KRW 20,000,000 ( KRW 15,000,000) and KRW 8,80,000] and damages for delay [the amount of KRW 20,000,000] and the damages for delay (the amount of KRW 2018,000,000)]. The said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision”) with the same content as the Defendant’s claim on April 24, 2018, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection on April 30, 2018, the said decision became final and conclusive on May 15, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 A without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff had subcontracted F work to the Defendant, and there was no fact that he had entrusted the rooftop waterproof and painting work on the parking lot for the F work site. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable to pay KRW 8.8 million to the Defendant regarding F work.

B. As there were defects in DD works performed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16.5 million to the Plaintiff and repaired the said defects, the defect repair cost at KRW 20 million for the construction remainder claimed by the Defendant.