1. The Defendants (including the counterclaim) are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (the counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 10,905,864 and its amount on July 19, 2019.

1. The facts under the facts below the basis shall not be contested between the Parties.

On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendants for the remodeling of the 2nd floor building located D in Jeju City.

The Defendants completed the construction work in April 2018.

By April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants a total of KRW 66,200,000 as construction cost.

2. Main elements;

A. According to the appraisal result of the partial appraiser E in lieu of defect repair and the overall purport of the pleading, it is recognized that there is a detailed description of non-construction and defects as shown in the attached Form 1. In addition to the description in attached Form 1., the part rejected is more than 10,905,864 won in the construction work executed by the Defendants, and it is deemed that it will take a total of 10,905,864 won in the construction work executed by the Defendants.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence is included in the construction contract, or it seems to constitute a complaint in accordance with the Plaintiff’s subjective intent rather than an objective defect.

(The appraisal result by the appraiser is that the appraisal cost for each item was appraised according to the plaintiff's application for appraisal, and whether the above matters are defective is determined by the court. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is that the instant contract does not determine the construction cost without the contract, design drawings, specifications, etc., and provides that the construction cost shall be settled according to the volume of materials input after the completion of the construction work.

However, when the Defendants calculates the appropriate construction cost according to the actual input volume of materials, the Defendants received KRW 66,200,000 from the Plaintiff as the construction cost, and 10,432,000 from the Plaintiff.

(b).