1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 35,054,959 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from February 2, 2012 to May 30, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 11, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to newly construct a house of 32.67 square meters on the ground B (hereinafter referred to as “first contract”) on the land B at Silung-si (excluding value-added tax) and entered into an additional construction contract with the purport that the construction area of the said house should be added to 13 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “second contract”) around March 201, the construction cost of KRW 33,820,000 (excluding value-added tax).

B. By June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 105,000,000 to the Defendant out of the construction cost under the instant contract.

C. The following defects were generated in the housing newly built under the instant contract (hereinafter “instant housing”).

(1) 시공상 잘못으로 인한 하자 ① [지상 1층] 벽체 누수, 벽체 하부 결로 및 곰팡이, 샷시(소리나고 뻑뻑하며, 여러 군데 구멍에서 누수), 천정마감파손(3ea), 바닥타일 시공오염, 창틀실링 파손, 천정실링파손, 벽체 모서리 이격, 계단 불량 피고는 원고의 요청으로 목수를 소개하여 원고가 이 부분 공사를 시행하였으므로 책임질 수 없다고 주장하나, 피고가 원고에게 목수를 소개해주었다고 하더라도 이 사건 주택의 시공 주체는 여전히 피고라고 보아야 하고, 감정인 C의 감정결과에 의하면, 계단 부분이 설계도면과 다르게 시공되어 있고 계단단차와 넓이가 다르며 계단 난간이 없고 일부는 마감이 되지 않은 상태인 사실이 인정되어 철거 후 재시공함이 상당하다고 판단된다. ,

Water leakage, water leakage from the wall surface, water leakage from the wall surface, water distribution, water exhauster, roof water leakage, roof waterproof damage from the wall surface to the wall surface, water filling, inner electric leakage, roof waterproof damage and double shooting, rainwater water supply (construction on the surface of a building), water filling and glass tamp pollution, door mold construction pollution;