A. The Defendant was awarded a contract with D for a new construction work of the E and the 1st ground mar (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On February 25, 2013, the Defendant concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with C to subcontract the part of reinforced concrete construction related to the said father and new construction work with C.

C. Around May 29, 2014, Co., Ltd. entered into a performance guarantee contract with FF Co., Ltd. on KRW 56,100,000, insurance premium of KRW 1,188,190 with respect to the warranty bond under the instant construction contract, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed C’s debt to F Co., Ltd. under the said contract.

After that, around May 28, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of 56,100,000 won of defect repair on the ground that there is a defect in relation to the instant construction work with FF Company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. We examined the judgment on the cost of repair of defects, Eul-B-3 through 7, 11, 12, the Suwon District Court of Sung-nam Branch of 2015da215da215471 (main office) and 2016Gadan6797 (Counterclaim). In this case, the defendant submitted a written appraisal of the relevant case as evidence Nos. 11 and 12.

In full view of each description (including each number) and witness G’s testimony, the entire purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged as follows: (a) the part of the instant construction contract under the instant construction contract is 27,497,200, except in extenuating circumstances, among the facts that there were defects in the instant building and the cost necessary to repair the said defects.

B. The result of the Plaintiff’s appraisal by the relevant legal appraiser on the Plaintiff’s assertion is against or unreasonable from the empirical rule.