1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 6,549,825 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from October 12, 2013 to February 19, 2016.

1. Common factual relations;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s new construction contract are the owners of the five-story above ground floor (D publicly notified source) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is the person who constructed the said building.

On March 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works for the construction works of the said building, and on March 22, 2011, the permission for use was granted on September 19, 201.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute】

B. The total construction cost unpaid by the Plaintiff is KRW 480 million.

Among them, 430 million won was paid, and 50 million won was unpaid.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute】

C. In full view of the result of the appraiser E’s appraisal of the cost of the defect repair related to the new construction project, the fact that the cost of the defect repair as indicated in the separate sheet on the calculation of the construction cost is required in relation to the new construction project, as a whole, in full view of the overall purport of the argument in the fact-finding of the appraiser E. However, since the defect in the new construction project between building stones is found to be 4,178,441 won due to the initial error in the result of the appraisal of the items “the defect in the previous item” among building stones, this part of the construction cost is to be reduced to 4,178,441 won (see section 35 of the previous fact-finding). As such, the fact-finding cost of the defect repair is to be reduced to 4,528,616 won, and the above fact-finding result

A. According to the above facts, the cost of repairing defects following the new construction works is KRW 56,549,825.

B. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that there are defects such as the attached defect description, and the defendant is obligated to pay the sum of KRW 13,920,000 as stated above.

However, there are such defects only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers).

It is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disbursement is necessary.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is rejected.