1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,102,012 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from March 24, 2016 to November 17, 2017.

1. Around May 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant contract with the Defendant to repair the underground parking lot (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) for KRW 390,500,000 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). Around December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 113,50,000 out of the remainder of the construction payment of the instant case, and asserted that the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the construction payment of KRW 113,50,000 from December 16, 2014 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case under the Commercial Act from the next day to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

See The Defendant asserted to the effect that since the construction of this case was defective in the construction of the non-construction and the non-performance of the construction of this case, there is no obligation to pay the balance, and at least it is necessary to deduct the cost of defect repair and the amount equivalent to the compensation for delay due to the delay of the construction of the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment by issue

A. Although the Plaintiff’s delay in the construction work and the Defendant’s delay in the payment of the remainder of the construction work in this case on September 30, 2015 and around December 15, 2015, the fact that the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the construction work even after the completion of the construction work in this case, there is no dispute between the parties. However, considering that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of the construction work within seven days after the completion of the construction work in accordance with the defect diagnosis report as to the defect repair on November 12, 2015, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the remainder of the construction work in this case was paid within seven days after the completion of the construction work, it is difficult to recognize the liquidated damages on the premise of the previous construction period, and it is difficult to view the remainder of the construction work as December 15, 2015, and it is difficult to view the payment of the remainder of the construction work as the payment of the remainder of the construction work.