1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,614,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 21, 2014 to September 15, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 25, 2010, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the Construction Work for New Native Facilities B and C (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”). Although the Plaintiff completed the said Construction Work, the Defendant did not pay KRW 4,164,00 among the construction cost.

B. The instant construction project performed by the Plaintiff was built of a girred concrete floor of the building (west side). The lower floor of the underground wall was dried, the lower floor of the building was dried, the lower floor of the building was dried, water coming into the underground room, and there were many new defects in the lower west and south west, and the construction cost for the repair of the defect was 30,026,000 won in total.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, appraiser D's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition under the above Paragraph (1) above, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of 4,1640,000 won payable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the damages amounting to 30,026,000 won of the defect repair cost of the construction of this case

If the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the unpaid construction cost and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the damages against the same amount set off, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost at KRW 11,614,00 (i.e., KRW 4,1640,00 - KRW 30,026,00) and the Defendant’s payment order from February 21, 2014 following the date of service of the instant payment order as to the existence and scope of the obligation, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation, from February 21, 2014 to September 15, 2015, which is the date of the instant judgment, 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act, and 20% per annum

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.