하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등 청구
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is as follows.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The allegations made by the Defendants on the grounds of appeal in the court of first instance and the allegations by Defendant B’s assistant intervenor (hereinafter “ assistant intervenor”) are as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical with that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Under the 7th day of the judgment of the first instance, the following facts are as follows: “The result of each request for supplementation of expert evidence to the appraiser of this Court (hereinafter “the result of each request for supplementation of expert evidence”)” is as follows: “The result of each request for supplementation of expert evidence to the first instance court and this court for supplementation of expert evidence (hereinafter “the result of each request for supplementation of expert evidence”)”. “The result of each request for supplementation of expert evidence to the appraiser of this court and this court for supplementation of expert evidence.”
Under the 26th day of the judgment of the first instance, Defendant C’s “Defendant C” shall be raised to Defendant C.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. Defendant B and the Intervenor’s assertion of individual defects [1] [2] 【Public 043’] Defendant B and the Intervenor’s Intervenor asserted that this item’s defect can be repaired by means of the construction of a paint at the time of a sudden width. As such, the cost of repairing the defect should be limited to KRW 16,329,470 equivalent to the cost of construction of a paint at the time of a sudden width.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the appraisal results and the purport of the entire theory of the instant case, namely, ① wide area of stuffed concrete without the floor of the instant apartment parking lot and the occurrence of dusts therefrom; ② As a result of the request for supplementation of appraisal by the appraiser on February 25, 2019, the appraiser expressed that the method of repair claimed by the Defendants could not guarantee the intensity of the surface of the processed concrete and undeveloped concrete and cause defects after the lapse of time. ③