1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the amount ordered to pay below.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the interior design and construction company with the trade name “E” in the Ildong-gu Seoul and D in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do.

B. On July 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the interior works of “G” stores on the F and fourth floors in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with the construction cost of KRW 29 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9.2 million on July 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff; and (b) the same year

7. 29.1 million won, and the same year

8. 9.4.6 million won, and the same year.

8. 15.4 million won was paid in total 18.8 million won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed the instant construction. As such, the Defendant already paid KRW 17.8 million out of the construction cost of KRW 31.9 million under the instant contract (i.e., KRW 29 million value-added tax of KRW 2.9 million) (i.e., KRW 1 million on July 29, 2016) (i.e., KRW 1 million irrelevant to the instant contract and paid as the down payment under a separate route design contract.

(2) The Defendant already paid KRW 188 million as the construction cost under the instant contract. (3) The Defendant had a duty to pay the remainder of KRW 14.1 million (i.e., KRW 31.9 million - KRW 17.8 million) and damages for delay.

However, since the Plaintiff still remains in the non-construction part and there were many defects in the construction part, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the construction work, but the Plaintiff refused this.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff, and rather, due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance, the Defendant incurred damages for the completion of the interior works, thereby compensating the Defendant for the said damages.

(b).