A. On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive construction cost of KRW 2.75 million (excluding removal and telecommunications construction) of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to change the said construction cost of KRW 2.926 million by adding a designated construction work. On February 1, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive KRW 3080,00 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant construction”). The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around 2019; the Defendant did not pay only the remainder of the construction cost of the instant building amount of KRW 2.95 billion (=2.68 million); and the remainder of the construction cost of the instant case of KRW 2.98 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction”).

(c)

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, by March 18, 2019, a certified mail stating that the unpaid construction cost shall be paid KRW 99 million, and the said certified mail sent to the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 3, 5 (including various numbers if there are several numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages from March 19, 2019, after the date of completion of the instant construction work, to the Plaintiff, which was subsequent to the date of payment sought by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant has a damage claim against the plaintiff in lieu of the defective repair equivalent to the total amount of KRW 113,795,000, as follows, so the defendant did not pay the plaintiff any money when offsetting the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost of this case.

① The Plaintiff installed a water tank with capacity and specification that falls short of the terms of the contract.

As a result, there is a shortage of water for living.