1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,618,377 as well as on December 2016.

. A summary of the official map of recognition.

2. Place of installation: Within the Amju-si A Apartment (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”).

3. Period of installation: 3,5250,00 won for the period of installation on April 15, 2016, and on May 16, 2016;

5. Period of liability for defects: Three years of contract amount* The contract amount shall be paid at the same time as the start of the construction and shall be paid at KRW 10 million if the construction exceeds 70 per cent.

* The balance of the construction shall be paid within seven days after the completion of the construction work.

On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the same content as the following: (a) windowing and painting of the outer wall (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff paid 17 million won as construction price to the Defendant.

C. The defendant completed the above construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) caused a lot of defects due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the instant construction work properly. 2) The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 58,916,730 in total, which is the cost of outer wall crack repair, and the cost of external windows molding construction, in lieu of the repair of defects.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The water leakage and rupture generated from the instant apartment is not caused by the Defendant’s construction, but due to the deterioration or confusion of the instant apartment. (2) At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff agreed to request only the minimum rupture repair construction, and only outside painting construction.

3) The instant construction contract is rescinded on the ground of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the construction cost. Since the Plaintiff is obligated to return 38 household repair costs from unjust enrichment to the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obliged to return KRW 21,329,121 to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s return to the Plaintiff should be offset by KRW 17 million. 4) In light of the principle of equity, reduction is necessary.

3. Determination

A. According to the appraisal result by appraiser C of the first instance trial as to the existence of liability for damages caused by defects in the instant construction work, the instant construction work is conducted.