A. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff contracted to the Defendant the construction work of constructing a “C” restaurant of the size of the second floor on the ground B (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the contract price of KRW 345,00,000.

B. The Defendant completed the instant construction work around January 20, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) c.

However, due to the defective construction of the instant building, defects such as the string of floor, water leakage, and the cracks of walls in the instant building, and defects such as external parking lot floor cracks and subsidences were generated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair defects arising from the instant construction project during the period from June 16, 2015 to July 6, 2015, but the Defendant did not comply therewith.

E. The details of all defects arising in relation to the instant construction and the amount necessary for the repair thereof are as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1 to 3, appraiser D's appraisal result, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the above claim for damages in lieu of defect repair, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 58,318,638 won (i.e., the part on the first floor above the outside parking lot of KRW 28,566,816, and the part on the second floor above the ground of KRW 6,178,830, and delay damages therefrom) and the damages incurred therefrom.

(The defendant asserts that the defects in the part of the external parking lot were caused by the plaintiff in the process of packing containers after the defendant's establishment of a container. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge them).

The Plaintiff seeking compensation for business suspension damage requires the construction period of at least 30 days of the defect repair of the instant building used as a restaurant, and is unable to conduct the business of the “C” restaurant during the construction period. If the business of the said restaurant operated by the Plaintiff is interrupted, the Plaintiff’s own operation of the cafeteria itself is also true.