1. From August 23, 2012 to January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) filed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 35,99,131 and its amount.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the terms of a contract for the construction of D building (hereinafter “instant construction”) from March 30, 201 to December 31, 201, with the construction period of KRW 1,705,000 (including value-added tax) fixed from March 30, 201 to December 31, 201. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and the said terms of the contract entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to increase the construction period from March 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to KRW 1,865,523,000 (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

After that, the Defendant commenced the instant construction, and the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the instant building on August 22, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) Claim for damages in lieu of defect repair 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not perform the instant construction or defective construction. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 84,535,119 in lieu of defect repair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84,535,119, etc.) to the Plaintiff, as stated in the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 16, No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 25, respectively, and the appraisal E (hereinafter “appraisal”).

According to the appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, while performing the instant construction project, may recognize the necessary facts, as stated in the column of “defect” as follows: (a) the Defendant performed non-construction or defective construction, etc.; and (b) the sum of KRW 67,332,966, as stated in the “amount of recognition” column of the same Table to either perform the said non-construction or repair the defective construction part.

As to this, the defendant alleged that the "defendant's assertion and judgment" as stated below is not a defect, but a defect as stated in the part of the claim. However, the defendant's assertion and judgment are not a defect as stated in the judgment.