1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 19,90,600 won against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is set forth in Paragraph 2 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

The term "duty to pay the balance of the construction work" as follows, and paragraph 3 (c).

Under the part not recognized as defects and non-execution, the following judgments are added to the Defendant’s argument. In addition to the correction of the “satisfy” as “satisfy,” the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such determination is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to pay the remainder of the construction work, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 19,990,60 (2,500,000 + the unpaid price of the construction work of this case + KRW 9,640,600 + 7,850,000 + the progress payment of the construction work of this case + the delay payment of 7,850,000 +) and damages for delay. However, in cases where both obligations are simultaneously in a bilateral contract, even if one of the obligations becomes due, the obligor shall not be liable for the delay even if the other party’s obligation becomes due, until the other party’s obligation becomes due, and such effect does not necessarily result in exercising the right of defense against the delay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604,54611, Mar. 13, 1998; and where the contractor exercises the right of compensation for defects or defects in the contract before the completion of the defect repair.