According to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, 1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, 1, and 2, the fact that the Plaintiff, on January 30, 2012, concluded a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for the construction cost of the second floor or facility construction of the second floor underground in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (excluding value-added tax) from January 25, 2012 to April 25, 2012 (hereinafter “the above building”). The above building works are called “the instant construction work”; the above construction contract is called “the instant construction work”; Defendant C, D, and E jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt arising from the construction contract; the Plaintiff and Defendant B extended the period of the above construction work to April 26, 2012.

The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim for damages due to defect occurred from time to time when water was leaked to the Defendant-B’s private house or facility, etc., and separately paid construction cost of KRW 267,860,00 on July 29, 2013 to the new construction company, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 267,860,00 as damages in lieu of defect repair. However, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 267,860,00 as damages incurred in lieu of defect repair. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 267,860,00 due to the fact that the defect occurred in the rain or facility built by the Defendant-B and the repair of the defect. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the agreement on the claim for liquidated damages, when Defendant B failed to complete the construction work within the construction period at the time of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the liquidated damages by multiplying the number of delayed days by the rate of liquidated damages. The instant construction contract document of this case contains 0.02% of the contract amount, and the contract amount is 650,000,000.

The Plaintiff is entitled to the instant construction contract.