손해배상(건)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Until June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant delayed work under the instant secondary construction agreement, and delayed the Defendant’s duty to repair any defect in the instant decoration that the Defendant had worked.
Therefore, the defendant ① 2013
5. From January 1 to June 30, 2013, the amount of damages incurred as a result of delay in implementing the second construction agreement, 45,597,900 won, and ② construction cost of 18,405,00 won for repairing defects, ③ the amount of damages incurred due to delay in repairing defects from July 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015, plus KRW 125,398,140, and delay damages therefrom.
3. Determination
A. The Defendant’s delay in the performance of the second construction agreement of the instant case 1 in nonperformance of obligation was agreed upon by April 30, 2013 pursuant to the second construction agreement of the instant case, but the Defendant agreed to complete the construction of the instant market until April 30, 2013, but the work was completed on June 30, 2013.
Therefore, the defendant is liable for the delay of the second construction agreement from May 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013.
In regard to this, the defendant, until April 30, 2013, completed the work on the 6th of the instant market, and the construction was delayed due to weather conditions in the case of the remaining 6th of the market, so there is no defense that there is no reason attributable to the defendant for delay of performance.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant completed the 6th of the instant market up to April 30, 2013.
In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the adequate temperature of the construction of the instant market is above 22°C. However, the second construction agreement of this case was not submitted with data to clearly verify the timing of conclusion of the second construction agreement of this case, but according to Gap evidence No. 2-2, the plaintiff was on Oct. 5, 2012. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23970, Oct. 5, 2012>