1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,300,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in a general household manufacturing business under the trade name of “D”, and the Defendants are jointly engaged in indoor decorations and construction business in the trade name of “E”.

B. On May 2013 and July 2013, at the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff completed the establishment of a household equivalent to KRW 66,000,000 at the F store located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si.

C. The Defendants paid KRW 37,700,000 among the above furnitures, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 28,300,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above basic facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid household price of KRW 28,300,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. (2) The Defendants asserted that the household construction cost of KRW 165,00,000 under the construction contract concluded with the F branch, which the Defendants entered into with F branch, may not cover the above KRW 44,095,00,00 in light of the fact that the household cost of KRW 165,00 under the construction contract that the Defendants entered into with F branch.

In light of the fact that the total amount of household price in a written estimate sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants exceeds KRW 66,00,000,000, and the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the Defendants and the F Points is a separate contract, it is difficult to deem that the household price supplied by the Plaintiff cannot be increased to KRW 44,095,00 solely on the sole basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ defense was offset against the Plaintiff’s damage claim, since the Defendants suffered damages equivalent to KRW 31 million due to the defects in the households supplied and installed by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the contents asserted by the Defendants as defects are caused by improper exposure to lighting or improper design of households.