1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,043,676 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 16, 2014 to September 24, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the interior works of a house located on the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground (hereinafter “instant construction works”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. From May 26, 2014 to July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 140,000 to the Defendant.

C. The instant contract was concluded on August 16, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute between the parties concerned; entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5; purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is the contractor of the contract of this case and the construction of this case caused defects in the building of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages in lieu of defect repair.

B. The defendant's assertion first, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case one year after receiving the result of the contract of this case from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages in lieu of the plaintiff's defect repair against the defendant is unlawful because the period of exclusion under Article 670 of the Civil Act expires, and it is unlawful.

Next, the defendant knows that the contractor is D Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff is not a party to the contract of this case.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defect alleged by the plaintiff is a defect in accordance with the plaintiff's instruction or the plaintiff's use, the defendant did not work, or the plaintiff did not pay the construction cost, and it cannot be said that it was a defect.

3. We examine the judgment on the defense prior to the merits, and the period of warranty against defects of a contractor under the Civil Act is the period of limitation and is not the period of release from the court for a judicial claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15371, Jun. 9, 2000). Each entry of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) is written.