The defendant's KRW 22,100,000 to the plaintiff as well as 5% per annum from March 3, 2020 to January 21, 2021.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 8, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive the contract amount of KRW 415,800,000 for steel reinforced concrete construction among the construction works for the new construction of an officetel in Nam-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. While the Plaintiff completed the said construction, the Defendant paid only KRW 383,700,000 out of the construction cost.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 32,100,000 (=415,800,000 - 383,700,000) and the delayed damages, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant should deduct the amount of 10 million won paid to F through E company, the plaintiff's recipient, on behalf of the plaintiff, from the construction price. The plaintiff does not dispute.

Therefore, the above KRW 10 million shall be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost.

B. The defendant requested the plaintiff to submit a warranty certificate for defects, but the plaintiff failed to do so, and the defendant issued a warranty insurance certificate for defects to the contractor (project owner). Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant a warranty bond equivalent to 3% of the contract price.

The argument is asserted.

The issue of the plaintiff's warranty insurance for performance of defects is separate from the issue of the defendant's warranty insurance for performance of defects, which is the plaintiff's warranty insurance for performance of defects. Thus, the defendant is obligated to issue the warranty insurance for performance of defects to the owner regardless of whether or not the plaintiff's warranty insurance for performance of defects is issued. According to the evidence No. 2, the plaintiff submitted the warranty insurance for performance of defects to the owner during the litigation of this case.