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. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the new construction of multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) on April 1, 2016 with the construction period from April 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016, the contract amount of KRW 56,168,000 (including value-added tax) and completed the instant construction.

B. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,00,000 as construction price, respectively, and KRW 30,000,00 on May 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 16,04,00 (i.e., KRW 56,168,00 - KRW 10,124,000 - KRW 30,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 21, 2016 to March 6, 2017 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant after the completion date of the construction of the instant case, as sought by the Plaintiff, from May 21, 2016 to March 6, 2017 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that ① there was a defect in water leakage on the part of the outer panel work of the building B that was newly constructed as the instant construction, ② the Plaintiff did not perform the rooftop crying work, the 2nd floor cryping damage work, and the outer wall vinyling work during the instant construction, and ③ did not state the details of the use of KRW 1,754,80 among the terms of the construction contract of the instant construction, the Defendant claimed that the total of KRW 12,723,300 should be deducted from the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff fulfilled all the construction work of this case according to the contract, and the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 are alone.