1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,990,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 6, 2017 to February 19, 2019.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff on Oct. 4, 2016, under which the defendant newly constructed a detached house C (hereinafter "the instant housing") on the land of Seocho-si (hereinafter "the instant construction") to the plaintiff for the construction work of KRW 97.6 million. Of the above construction cost, the contract was concluded to pay KRW 50 million after the foundation work and KRW 47.6 million after the completion of the construction work, and the plaintiff completed the construction work in this case and obtained approval for the use of the instant housing on Jun. 15, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 50 million among the above construction cost.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 47.6 million and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of defects

A. In full view of the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4-29’s appraisal results, the entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) defects such as the result of the appraisal of defects in the instant house; and (b) the fact that the total cost of the repair of defects is 8610,000 won.

The above defect repair cost of KRW 8.610,000 shall be deducted from the construction cost of KRW 47.6 million that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 38.99 million won (47.6 million won - 8.61 million won) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 6, 2017, which is the date of this decision, which is the date of this decision, deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from September 6, 2017 to February 19, 2019, and from the following day to the date of the full payment.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition.