1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person running a construction business, such as painting and specialized construction work, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur engaged in a paint business with the trade name C.

B. The Plaintiff awarded a contract with D for the painting construction work of Jung-gu, Daegu-gu and 2 lots of land Ftel (hereinafter “instant building”) from D, and ordered the Defendant to subcontract the remainder (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) excluding the construction of a short-term smoking and sprinking construction around February 2017.

C. Around July 2017, the Defendant completed the remainder of the instant construction works, excluding VP seal construction works.

The plaintiff paid 87 million won to the defendant as construction price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to pay KRW 21,23,520, the sum of KRW 16,500,000 for losses incurred by the Plaintiff’s completion of construction work by making the Plaintiff’s improper construction cost of 5P painting painting construction cost of 4,733,520, and external construction cost of 16,50,000.

B. Determination 1) Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not perform the part of the VP painting construction cost agreed to perform the construction work, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 4,733,520 for the VP painting construction work. 2) The Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant performed the defective construction of the VP painting construction cost solely with the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 9 as well as the testimony by the witness G of the party concerned, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit without the need for further review.

3) The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that since the construction cost not paid by the plaintiff exceeds the above VP seal construction cost, the plaintiff asserts that the construction cost should be paid by the plaintiff should be paid (the deduction or set-off).