1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff B, KRW 10,037,571, and KRW 6,691,714 for each of the said KRW and each of the said KRW to Plaintiff C and D, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. A around 2013, around 2013, concluded a Rotterdam construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the structure of the fifth floor, which was operated as a Kaf, among the buildings located in Gangseo-si F, the Defendant and the Defendant’s (hereinafter “instant building”).

(A) No written estimate, design drawing, or construction contract shall be prepared.

B. A, after changing the structure of the fifth floor of the instant building into a pentle according to the instant contract, requested the Defendant to pay the construction cost of KRW 5,493,00,000,000 as stated in the attached Form No. 1133, Sept. 4, 2013; however, the Defendant did not pay the price, other than the payment of KRW 500,000,000,000,000 for each of the 5th floor of the instant building on September 17, 2013; and October 1, 2013.

C. On July 3, 2015, A died on July 3, 2015, during which the instant lawsuit was pending, and succeeded to A’s rights and obligations with the 3/7 shares of Plaintiff B, who was a child, and 2/7 shares of Plaintiff C and D, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 14, Gap 14, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraiser G’s appraisal of the construction price of the instant construction project, the fact that A performed the construction work as shown in the attached sheet, and the ordinary construction cost incurred in performing the construction work as described in the attached sheet, may be acknowledged as exceeding

The Defendant is obligated to pay A the remainder of KRW 2,693,00,000,000,000 for the construction cost as claimed by A, which is KRW 54,930,00,00 for the construction cost as claimed by A (=5,4930,000 - 28,000,000).

B. Defendant’s defense 1) The Defendant asserted that the 4th and the 5th floor of the instant building after the Plaintiff’s construction work caused the same defects as the indicated in the “items of Appraisal” in the attached construction cost computation table, and asserts that the defect repair cost should be deducted from the construction cost. 2) The appraiser G’s defect appraisal result is not acceptable.