1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. On November 2014, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 11,500,000 and the delay damages for the repair work of the loan underground floor located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The Defendant’s failure to pay KRW 11,50,000 to the Plaintiff out of the construction cost of the instant case may be recognized without dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of each of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of the instant construction cost of KRW 11,50,000 and the delay damages for the aforementioned construction.

B. The defendant's defense, etc. is proved to offset the damage claim against the plaintiff in lieu of defect repair against the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's claim for construction price against the defendant by the automatic claim.

As seen below, it is recognized that the Defendant’s damage claim 7,921,760 won in lieu of the defect repair against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s damage claim and the Defendant’s damage claim in lieu of the defect repair were set-off due to the arrival of the due date prior to the completion date of the instant construction work. Each of the above claims shall be extinguished by the Defendant’s declaration of offset within an equal amount retroactively to the set-off date. As a result, the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost (i.e., the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost amount of KRW 11,50,500 - Defendant’s damage claim 7,921,760) remains.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant’s lawsuit is 3,578,240 won for the construction cost and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, respectively, from November 11, 2015 to October 25, 2017, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case filed by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.