1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in KRW 314,958,084.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part is as follows, except as follows, the reasoning for this Court is as follows: “1. Basic Facts” (from 3, 9, to 8, up to 3, ) for the judgment of the first instance; thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the 4th page, the following "amount received at the time" shall be raised to "amount received at the time":

In five pages, under two below, "3,412,253,80 won" shall be deemed "2,412,253,800 won".

5. The number of pages 1 to 6 shall be as follows:

When the Defendant received the warranty amount of less than 66.2% of the warranty amount from the Korea Housing Guarantee, the original Defendant converted the deposit amount of the instant service contract into the contract warranty amount on February 3, 2015. The Plaintiff entered into the contract for defect repair work (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the content of the contract for defect repair work (hereinafter referred to as the “instant defect repair work”) for the amount of less than 1,798,606,200 won (=4,210,860,000 - 2,412,253,800 won), including the construction work of 1,857,58,240 won in total, 1,857,240 won in total, 58,240 won in total, and the construction work of defect repair work for the period of 1 to 3 years (hereinafter referred to as the “instant defect repair work”).

Under the 6th 6th Roster, the 6th 6th Roy's "cost" shall be considered as "Plaintiff", and the 9th Roy's "Da" on the 7th Roy's table shall be considered as "large."

From the 8th side to the 3th 4th 4th , “the result of the fact-finding reply from December 20, 2017 to the Seoul Eastern Vice-Governor of the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation” is the result of the fact-finding inquiry from the first instance court on December 20, 2017 to the Seoul East-dong Vice-Governor of the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation.”

With respect to the claim for the construction cost of the principal claim, the criteria for distinguishing between the failure to complete construction works under the relevant law-based contract and the failure to complete construction works under the instant contract are not completed as the construction is discontinued and the final process of construction is not completed.