1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 38,059,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 14, 2016 to August 25, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendants on the ground of the wife population D, the construction cost of which is KRW 350,000,000,000 for the new construction of reinforced concrete roof reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the new construction on April 2016, and the Defendants completed the preservation registration on the instant building on April 14, 2016.

C. The building of this case requires 6,941,00 won out of the cost of repair, where there are defects in the non-construction part and defects, such as the attached details.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 25, video and appraiser E's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants, a joint contract, are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 14, 2016 to August 25, 2017, which is the day following the day when the Plaintiff’s complaint was served, with the exception of KRW 35 million in the construction cost agreed upon to the Plaintiff, and KRW 35 million in the remainder of KRW 6,941,000 in the defect repair cost, and KRW 38,059,000 in the remainder, excluding KRW 6,941,000 in the defect repair cost, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 26, 2017 to the day of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of additional construction works asserts that, at the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff added 5,80,000 won, such as CCTV installation works and water supply construction works that were not originally intended in the construction work.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement on additional construction only with the statement of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The claim of this case is partly accepted within the extent of the above recognition.