1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph 1 of the same Article. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In light of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on September 9, 2010. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 21,345,180 won (i.e., total construction cost of KRW 104,527,000 (i.e., total construction cost of KRW 83,181,820) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 10, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the date following the completion of construction, which is the date of the first instance judgment, to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform; and
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that it completed the instant construction work on August 2, 2010 and claimed for the payment of damages for delay from August 3, 2010. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On the summary of the argument, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's construction of the building of this case or the defective construction of the building of this case, as agreed in the construction contract of this case, caused damages to the defendant. In lieu of the repair of these defects, if the defendant offsets the plaintiff's claim for construction payment against the plaintiff under the construction contract of this case, the plaintiff's claim for construction payment does not remain more than the price payable to the defendant.
B. (i) The evidence mentioned prior to the determination of the liability for damages in lieu of the defect repair, as well as evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (including, if any, the number is included).