1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,239,872 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 2,665,736 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each of the said money, from December 15, 2015 to December 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A owns 2nd floor building of the block structure slive roof (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) No. 10613 of the 3rd ground management of the Busan Youngdo-gu, Busan, and the Plaintiff B owns 2nd floor building of the 2nd floor of the 2nd ground management of the 10612 attached Table No. 2 and the 10612 attached Table No. 2 of the 10612 (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”).

(hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's building"). B.

The Defendant started construction work around May 19, 2014 and completed the civil construction work around February 2015, as an implementer and a contractor for the construction work of a common building and an officetel on the 15th floor size on the ground located in Busan-do, Busan-gu, and five parcels (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

C. After the construction of the instant building, there were both inner and external walls ruptures, mashings, and brick joints with walls, windows, water leakages, etc.

On the other hand, the building of the plaintiffs was completed around 1972, and at the time the defendant conducted a pre-safety inspection on the building of the plaintiffs on April 2014, which was before the commencement of the construction of the building of this case, multiple ruptures were discovered inside the outer wall and inside the building.

E. Although the Defendant performed the repair work for defects that occurred in the building of the Plaintiffs, there still remains ruptures such as ruptures and falls in the damaged column among the details of the attached defect repair cost in the building of the Plaintiffs.

Except for the portion of the repair work performed by the Defendant, the repair cost based on the current state of the portion not discovered in the pre-safety inspection seems to be each clerical error in the “1,549,841 won in the case of the Plaintiff A building; 3,332,171 won in the case of the Plaintiff B building; 1,549,842 won in the appraisal report prepared by the Plaintiff E appraiser E, i.e., the 1,549,841 won in the case of the Plaintiff B building; 3,32,172 won in the “3,32,171 won”.

(c) [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 2 and images, the appraisal results of this court's appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings.