1. The plaintiffs in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim extended and reduced in the trial.

1. Construction works under the contract of the Plaintiff for the construction of the title of the construction (cost and value added) for the construction work (excluding cost and value added tax) on July 16, 2012, from July 16, 2012 to December 30, 2012, 1,390,000 railing construction works from July 16, 2012 to December 30, 2012;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the Plaintiffs regarding the new construction of “E”, such as land D in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu as indicated in the following table:

B. Around September 2012, the Plaintiffs were suspended from the said Newly constructed Corporation on the grounds of the Defendant’s failure to pay the construction price, etc. while performing construction works under each of the above construction contracts.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 and 2 of Evidence Nos. 6 and 8-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the claim for the unpaid construction cost

A. The fact that the Plaintiff’s progress payment for the unpaid construction cost was 225,623,860 won (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the Plaintiff’s progress payment for the construction cost was 79,246,200 won (including value-added tax) by the time of the discontinuance of the new construction project is not disputed between the parties or recognized by the parties, and the Plaintiff’s thirdethyl was paid KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff Triethyl 210,623,860 won (=225,623,860 won - 15,000,000 won) due to the payment of the work price, and damages for delay for the payment of each of the above amounts to the plaintiff C.

B. The Defendant’s defense of set-off is asserted that the Defendant offsets the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the construction cost against the damages equivalent to KRW 29,017,00 in lieu of defect repair.

In light of the purport of the oral argument as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of the trial, it is recognized that the repair is necessary due to the occurrence of defects in the part constructed by the plaintiff Triethyl, and that the cost of repairing defects of KRW 24,282,850 is required, and KRW 1,848,319, and KRW 2,885,832, the total cost of repairing defects between windows, and KRW 29,017,00,00,000.

3.2