1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendants amounting to KRW 11,177,161 as well as the Plaintiff’s joint and several costs from October 7, 2015.

1. The reasoning for each part of the instant lawsuit is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the basic facts, the parties’ assertion, and the unlawful part of the instant lawsuit are the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main

2. Judgment on the remaining claims of the Plaintiff

A. Whether there was an agreement on the settlement of accounts with the remaining construction cost of KRW 70 million (1) or not, the instant construction cost was KRW 496,650,000 (including value-added tax); the Defendants paid KRW 390,600,000 out of the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff from May 29, 2012 to April 26, 2013; and the Defendants had not been paid KRW 106,050,000 out of the instant construction cost, as seen in the foregoing basic facts. Accordingly, it is examined as to whether there was a settlement agreement between the original Defendant around August 2013, to deduct the defect repair amount from the unpaid construction cost and pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff.

(2) In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8 (including paper numbers) and witness G of the court of first instance, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) On December 13, 2012, the Defendants concluded the instant construction contract without completing the construction work on the matters indicated in the damaged portion until December 17, 2012, and filed a claim for interest on the payment of delayed compensation upon termination of the contract with the Plaintiff at the time of the termination of the contract. The amount of compensation for delay determined at the time of the instant construction contract at 2/1,000 per day was 67,725,000 per day as of December 12, 2012, which was 67,725,000 per day.

“The notice of follow-up measures following the delay in the construction period was sent by content-certified mail. (B) The Plaintiff and the Defendants sent the notice of measures following the delay by content-certified mail. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not implement the instant construction even though they decided to complete the construction by December 17, 2012, but did not complete the construction by January 13, 2013, including the parts of the defects pointed out by the Defendants, and the defect repair period by two years.