1.The following amounts, among the parts against the principal suit of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be payable:

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant for the construction of the Daegu Dong-gu D’s Daegu Building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in C, with a price of KRW 10 million for the design of the rooftop Do-gu waterproofproof construction, etc., and completed the construction on March 11, 2013.

B. On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Defendant, but did not receive the remainder of construction cost of KRW 5 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the principal lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of five million won and the damages for delay calculated from October 31, 2013, which was obvious after the completion date of the above construction work, to the Plaintiff, on the record that it is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense against the main lawsuit and the cause of the counterclaim

A. The main point of the assertion occurred due to the defect in the rooftop-to-land waterproof waterproof construction works executed by the plaintiff, which caused water leakages of 505 and 506. In spite of the defendant's request, the defendant did not perform the subcontracted construction works with the plaintiff, and the defendant cancelled the subcontract construction contract with the plaintiff and performed reconstruction in bringing KRW 14,575,00,00, the plaintiff is obligated to return the already received construction cost to the defendant and compensate the defendant for the expenses of KRW 3,96,00 for the defect repair cost invested by the defendant.

B. 1) The fact that water leakages occurred in Nos. 505 and 506 of the instant building; the fact that E, at the Defendant’s request, performed some rooftop lelele-proof waterproof construction works, and painting construction of parking lot floors and columns, etc. may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a result of the witness E’s testimony. Furthermore, whether the above water leakages occurred due to the defect of the Plaintiff’s construction; and whether the Defendant invested KRW 14,575,000 for the repair work, is a health stand.