1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,408,808 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 18, 2014 to August 12, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that manufactures, processes, sells, and performs civil engineering and construction and materials necessary therefor, supplied the Defendant, who is a man-made business operator, with materials, such as floor, date, etc., and directly executes construction as necessary.

B. On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply reinforcement floors and 247 Gamaco-day at the construction site of Gyeongnam-gun, Busan-gun, the construction site of Gyeongnam-gun, and to perform interior works (hereinafter referred to as “instant interior construction contract”). On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant interior works.

C. Between October 201 and August 2014, 201, the price for goods and the price for construction that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant, including the instant interior construction contract, is 38,154,025 won in total.

(hereinafter referred to as “paid construction cost, etc. of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / [The parties are not interested in the dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 38,154,025 won and damages for delay due to the payment of the construction price in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the construction of the interior works of this case is defective in the reinforcement floor and the construction of the interior works of this case, and the repair cost of which is 4,279,774 won (i.e., KRW 42,534,557, KRW 11,745,217) (i.e., KRW 42,534, KRW 557, KRW 11,745, and KRW 217). Thus, the defendant asserts that the damages claim of this case against the plaintiff is set off against the claims such as the payment of the construction cost of this case due to the warranty liability or nonperformance of obligation (hereinafter "damage claim of this case").

B. We examine 1 case. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal commission and fact inquiry by the court, we see this case’s interior construction project as a result of the reinforcement floor.