A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) the total construction price of KRW 943,800,000 (including additional taxes is KRW 1,038,180,000; and (b) the remainder is paid upon completion of the construction work); and (c) the construction period from April 13, 2013 to the same year.

7. up to 13. Along with the construction area of 1,197.9 square meters, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Diplomatic Center exclusively for children of “E” (hereinafter “instant sports center”) concluded the instant construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract or the instant construction project”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction on June 27, 2013, and received part of the remainder from the Defendants on the following day, but did not receive the remainder KRW 80,180,000 until then.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 80,180,000 and damages for delay from June 28, 2013, which is the day following the completion date of the construction project.

(A) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from June 19, 2013, which is the date of approval for the use of the instant construction project, but, as seen earlier, it decided to pay the remainder of the construction project in the instant construction contract for the completion of the construction project. Since the date of completion of the instant construction project is June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is rejected). 3. Determination as to the Defendants’ defense

A. The main purport of the assertion is that the Defendants are claiming unjust enrichment for the amount of non-construction of KRW 207,412,500 for damages in lieu of defect repair in relation to the instant construction work. However, the Defendants are included in the non-construction defect in the construction work. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is determined as compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair, contrary to the assertion of damages arising from defective construction.

In addition, the defendants are the amount of non-execution.