1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to repair defects under the standard contract for private construction works dated February 19, 201 against the Defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 3-4, Eul evidence No. 1-2, and Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 19, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to conclude a contract with the amount of KRW 4,147,00,000 of the contract amount for the new construction of the building in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). On December 19, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. as to the instant construction contract.

B. As a result of examining whether there was a defect in the building newly constructed under the instant construction contract, the non-party construction company deemed that there was a defect equivalent to KRW 101,150,000.

C. Upon performance to Nonparty Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff claimed insurance proceeds of KRW 99,778,720 on October 1, 2015 under the Guarantee Insurance Contract, and subsequently changed the claimed amount to KRW 63,823,000.

On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to calculate the defect repair amount as KRW 46,000,000 and to share the said amount.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay the defect repair under the instant construction contract, since the Plaintiff paid the defect repair under the instant construction contract to the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the defect repair amount under the construction contract of this case was KRW 46,000,000 and agreed to share the above amount.

However, as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the specific apportionment ratio of the defect repair amount under the instant construction contract, and whether the Plaintiff paid the defect repair amount to the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of health class and evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.