1. A plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) who ordered the payment in excess of the following amount among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation about this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

Except for partial revision like paragraph, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On January 23, 2014, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The plaintiff submitted the commencement report, but the actual commencement of the construction was delayed at the latest in selecting the aggregate construction company.” The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The plaintiff submitted the commencement report, but the actual commencement of the construction has been delayed from it,” and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “ January 23, 2014,” “The plaintiff submitted it to the plaintiff” at the bottom of No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and “The plaintiff submitted it to the plaintiff” at the bottom of No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “No. 19, Jun. 19, 2015”, “No. 19, Jun. 19, 2015,” and the defendant asserted that the contract was extended on May 20, 2015.”

(The scheduled date of completion under the instant contract refers to the date on which the construction work is not completed, but is ultimately subject to a disposition of pre-use inspection. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the penalty for delay 14,081,698,338 for delay for the 154 days of the above 154 days of delay (=(239,6900 value-added tax of KRW 239,691,598) ¡¿ 154 days 】 154 days x 1/1000, and less than KRW 1/100) and delay damages.

The plaintiff and the defendant extended the construction period on five occasions, and finally determined the completion date of the completion on August 31, 2015.

Since the Defendant completed the new construction of the instant apartment before August 31, 2015, there is no penalty for delay.

The plaintiff, even if any.