The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 45,581,810 and its amount from March 4, 2014 to December 10, 2014.

The fact of finding the cause of the determination on the claim for the remainder of the remodeling project on the outer wall claim is that the plaintiff is a stock company with the purpose of indoor construction business, and received from the defendant A for remodeling D Building in Seodaemun-gu Seoul on November 4, 2011 (hereinafter “instant building remodeling project,” and the building subject to construction “instant building”) the outer wall remodeling project (hereinafter “the instant outer wall remodeling project”) among the construction works in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) within the scope of KRW 663,30,000 for the construction cost and February 28, 2012 for the construction period. The plaintiff and the defendant A extended the construction period to KRW 685,30,000 for the construction cost on February 28, 2012 (including value-added tax) and extended the construction period to October 10, 2012.

Defendant A paid the Plaintiff KRW 198,990,00 as the cost of remodeling the instant outer wall on November 15, 201, KRW 200,000,000 on December 2, 201, and KRW 65,320,000 on December 29, 201, and KRW 22,00,000 on February 24, 2012, and the Plaintiff completed the remodeling project of the instant outer wall around May 2012.

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, barring any special circumstance, defendant A is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining amount of 198,990,000 won (685,30,000 won - 486,310,000 won) for remodeling of the outer wall of this case and delay damages therefor.

Defendant A, on the basis of the completion of the defect repair work, has increased the construction cost as above on February 28, 2012, and the Plaintiff did not perform its duty of defect repair. Thus, Defendant E’s testimony, which corresponds to the fact that the said condition was established in order to increase the construction cost, is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.