1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,974,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 24, 2015 to February 25, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 2011, C was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new building on the two lots of land, the elderly group D, and the two lots of land (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 700 million.

B. While performing the instant construction, C died on October 21, 201, the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations relating to the instant construction.

C. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff underwent a completion inspection on March 27, 2012, and on April 10, 2012 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation from the Defendant that “The rest of the construction shall be installed (repair) fences, ② toilets windows, ③ boiler (office rooms, dormitories), ④ singckes, ⑤ office poles, ⑤ office poles, 6 bathing room location, Contact, 7 feet, 8 shock networks, 9 capitals, etc.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant confirmation”). D.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff completed the remainder of the instant confirmation document, the Defendant paid only KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff from April 19, 2012 to May 11, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 3; Gap evidence 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); each video; the result of the on-site inspection by this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million (=10 million - 70 million) and damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1A) Although the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to issue a defect repair performance bond, the Plaintiff decided to deduct KRW 30 million from the construction cost of the instant construction project instead of issuing the performance bond. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

B) Since defects occurred in toilets, fences, etc. after the completion of construction of the instant case, and 30 million won is spent at the cost of remuneration, the instant construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff is not remaining. 2)