1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2016, the Defendant issued a subcontract to the Plaintiff on February 20, 2016, setting the construction cost of KRW 18.6 million and the construction cost payment payment payment date on February 20, 2016, among Dental Hospital Dental Hospital Dental Design Corporation in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. The Plaintiff completed the floor construction around February 10, 2016.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 10 million on the day of the contract, plus KRW 14 million on March 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of 4.6 million won (=18.6 million won - 14 million won) to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Before the conclusion of the subcontract, the Plaintiff had part of the floor of the first floor constructed as a sampling and paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff the construction cost. After concluding the contract, the Plaintiff agreed to deduct KRW 500,000 of the cost of sampling construction from the total construction cost. 2) The Plaintiff damaged films that had been already constructed while performing construction work without ventilation work, and ② did not properly mash the floor. 3 The part of the floor was constructed by the error and the Defendant paid KRW 3.8 million in total for reconstruction and repair of film reconstruction cost, KRW 1,80,000,000,000 in the floor repair cost, KRW 1,000,000 in the floor repair cost, and KRW 3.8 million in the floor repair cost.

Compensation in lieu of the defect repair in the unpaid construction cost shall be deducted.

B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to deduct the cost of sampling construction from the total construction cost, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

Rather, according to Gap 1-10, the plaintiff did not pay the balance of the construction cost, and the plaintiff sent several text messages demanding the payment, and the defendant decided to deduct the cost of sampling construction.