1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, concluded the instant apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the construction cost of KRW 36,00,000, and the period from February 26, 2018 to March 20, 2018, and agreed to extend the construction period of KRW 36,510,000 to March 22, 2018.

B. After March 22, 2018, the deadline for construction, the Plaintiff failed to complete the construction work even until March 25, 2018, which was the date on which the Defendant moved into the instant apartment, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 26, 2018 that the instant construction contract was terminated on the grounds of the delay in construction and the occurrence of defects.

In the process, there was a dispute between the parties, and while the plaintiff's husband filed a complaint as a crime of intimidation against the defendant's husband, the plaintiff's husband was subject to a disposition of incompetence of evidence.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost under the instant construction contract, excluding KRW 5,780,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 100, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the principal claim

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the claim for the unpaid construction cost, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost under the instant construction contract.

B. In addition to the construction cost under the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff filed a claim for additional construction cost of KRW 1,800,000, KRW 700,000, KRW 2500,000, and KRW 2,500,000, in addition to the construction cost under the instant construction contract, for additional construction cost as additional construction cost, but only the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 5 and 13 alone, there was an agreement between the parties as above.

It is insufficient to recognize that the additional construction cost has reached KRW 2,500,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant shall pay the construction price to the plaintiff 5,780.