According to this, the Defendants are obliged to pay the above construction cost and delay damages to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the damages claim in lieu of the defect repair is set off against the amount equal to that of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment, as there are defects such as the defect list in the attached list of defects in the instant building and the Plaintiff’s construction cost is required to repair the defect.

B. In full view of the records in Eul evidence Nos. 10, the results of the on-site verification of this court, the appraisal results of appraiser E, and the purport of each fact-finding conducted by the above appraiser, among the defects alleged by the defendant, the items recognized as defects caused by the defendant's wrong construction should be the same as the entries in the column for the defect in the attached sheet, and the expenses incurred in repairing the defects should be the sum of KRW 47,109,000 (including KRW 1,395,000, which has caused damage to the lessee No. 401), as stated in the column for recognition of the above Table, and the above evidence No. 3 should not be accepted. In addition, the above evidence No. 3 should not be accepted to the effect that the plaintiff's assertion that some of the fireproof parts of the stairs of the stairs due to the water leakage of the floor of the balcony of the fourth floor can remove the pollution solely by the work of reducing the water surface of the inner dyke floor due to the plaintiff's construction defects.