1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,308,50 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from May 16, 2018 to June 15, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant, who is engaged in civil engineering and construction business, for the new construction work of Gwangju Mine-gu B Living Facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Defendant completed the instant construction and obtained approval for the use of the instant building on November 25, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the result of the appraisal commission to the original architect office of this court and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that there are defects such as defective construction, virtual construction, and non-construction (except for the non-construction portion such as the pre-existing, etc. of each floor in the neighborhood living room) and 28,308,500 won in order to repair the building of this case (=3,295,600 won 36,938,600 won-1,925,100 won).

B. Although the Plaintiff alleged that the aforementioned portion of the non-construction work, such as the front stream, etc., before each floor living room, was non-construction, the Plaintiff alleged that the said portion was non-construction, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in light of the evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, and the entire purport of the argument as to the creative architectural office of this court, the Plaintiff stated that the conditions of the estimate statement prepared at the time of the contract of this case, “the application of electric light works pipe/ cable construction,” and the construction specifications attached to the said estimate do not exist in the construction specifications. Accordingly, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exclude the construction parts “before the front stream, etc., of each floor living room in the neighborhood,” within the scope of the construction of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. The Defendant’s portion of construction of each floor neighborhood living facilities, lightweight steel-frame framework, smoking architecture, and straws.