1. The first instance judgment, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded and reduced in the trial, has been modified as follows:

(c). (a).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant as the owner of the instant building located in Scheon-si (hereinafter “instant building”) and entered into the instant construction contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”).

The date of commencement: The scheduled completion date of the project on January 15, 2013: The construction cost for the unclaimed, landscaping, and waterproof integrated construction project: The amount calculated as at the end of 39,000,000 square meters in total floor area of KRW 390,000 per square meter (the rate of the warranty bond (%) per square meter in accordance with the calculation of 100,000 won per square meter (the rate of the warranty bond) / the total warranty period of 3% in total for the warranty bond / the defect warranty period of KRW 1,170,000 after completion of the construction project.

B. On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff implemented the instant construction contract: (a) paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 39,000,000 and the additional construction cost of KRW 6,000,000 under the instant construction contract; (b) the Defendant completed the instant construction work on or around March 2013 under the said contract; and (c) the Plaintiff was completed construction of the instant building on August 27, 2013.

C. Around September 2013, there was a defect in the instant construction, and around September 2013, the Defendant performed the instant construction work upon the Plaintiff’s demand for repair. (2) From April 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to notify the Defendant of the defect that there was a defect in the instant construction work, such as the occurrence of water leakage in the small bank in 701 of the instant building, 7th floor stairs, 4th floor stairs, and 401 dwelling space. However, the Plaintiff rejected the repair work rather than the part arising from the construction performed by the Defendant.

3) On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that “the Plaintiff would directly perform the defect repair work, and later would claim damages in lieu of the defect repair after the completion of construction work.” 4) The Plaintiff was the rooftop waterproof work and the instant building from August 2014 to November 201.