1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 43,106,297 won and the period from August 18, 2016 to July 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who intends to run a lodging business with a penture on the land outside D in the city of official city, and the Defendants jointly run the construction business with the trade name of E as a marital relation.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendants for the penta Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) with D and 1 lots of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. Accordingly, around June 12, 2013, the Defendants newly constructed the pention of the foregoing eight agreements (hereinafter “instant pention”).

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in a large number of defects or non-constructions in the instant pension constructed by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of repair costs and damages equivalent to value added tax for the defects or non-construction of the instant pent, as well as the total amount of damages equivalent to KRW 58,100,155, and damages for delay in payment for the amount of KRW 10,425,102, and damages for losses incurred from the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct the above four businesses due to the defects in the floor heating facilities of KRW 1,2 dong, G 1, and 2 of the instant pent, among the defects in the instant pent structure.

B. The plaintiff asserts that (i) the judgment of the claim for damages due to defects or non-constructions should be based on the design drawings used in the instant construction, which are the design drawings used in the instant construction, to determine the defective or non-construction parts.

However, the defendants asserts that the contract of this case and the detailed statement of construction cost attached to the contract of this case must be the criteria for determining defects or non-construction parts in preference to the design drawing.

According to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff and the Defendants conclude a contract for the instant construction work (Evidence No. 2-1 of evidence No. 2).