1. The Defendant’s KRW 25 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 18, 2017 to October 18, 2017, and the following.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause for the claim (amount of the unpaid construction price) or the overall purport of evidence and pleadings, the Plaintiff completed the construction by designating the Defendant as KRW 5,800 on May 22, 2013 as the total construction cost for mobile wall waterproofing construction, floor removal construction, painting construction, roof waterproof construction, and rooftop waterproof construction from the Defendant; (b) around June 2013, the Plaintiff completed the construction by additionally being awarded a contract with the Defendant to install a rooftop X-ray installation work and door door-to-door installation work from the Defendant to the C Apartment; (c) the Defendant did not pay part of the construction price to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request on October 2016; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff completed construction work by setting up the joint shape (Evidence 7) stating that the unpaid construction price is KRW 25 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 25 million and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 18, 2017, the date following the date of service of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff after the completion date of construction to October 18, 2017, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the defendant's duty of performance, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion pointing out that the defendant's claim for construction cost is unjust to the defendant without paying any repair despite the defect in the part of the construction work executed by the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was defective in the construction work, and the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.