1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of KRW 42,388,000 and the amount of KRW 42,38,00 from November 18, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant was awarded a contract with A for the new construction work of the building B and 1 above ground (hereinafter "the building of this case") as a corporation for the purpose of civil engineering, construction work, etc.

B. Around October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction with the Defendant to accept the part of the sculpture, design, waterproof, and painting construction with respect to the foregoing mountain father and new construction works (hereinafter “instant contract for construction”).

C. After that, on June 2014, the Plaintiff completed the foregoing construction and issued the performance guarantee insurance policy for which the Seoul Guarantee Insurance was granted to the Defendant. On June 22, 2015, the Defendant requested the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Policy to pay the defect repair amount of KRW 10,340,000 on the ground that there is a defect in relation to the instant construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Examining the determination of the cost of repair of defects, comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 (including various numbers); (b) witness C’s testimony and appraiser C’s appraisal result; and (c) the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal by appraiser C, the part of the construction contract of this case among the facts of defects in the building of this case and the cost necessary for the repair of the said defects may be recognized as constituting 42,38,000, barring special circumstances

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As a result of the appraisal by an appraiser of relevant legal principles, the appraisal method, etc. shall be respected insofar as there is no obvious fault, such as contrary to the empirical rule or the lack of rationality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84615, 84615, 84622, and 84639, Jan. 12, 2012). In a case where the contractor, who performs construction works upon the order of the contractor, fails to notify the contractor of the inappropriate direction, even if the completed building’s defect is attributable to the order of the contractor.