공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The Defendants asserting that the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred in the part of the interior works executed by the Plaintiff, and that the repair work was requested to the Plaintiff, who is the contractor of the interior works, and that the repair work was not requested during the winter season.
(A) The Plaintiff did not prove the fact that the Defendants requested the repair work in the same period, and there was no request from the Defendants for the repair work in the same period. However, during the defect repair work process, it is found that the Plaintiff’s occurrence of mycoin was due to the Plaintiff’s determination of the building itself rather than the Plaintiff’s fault due to the Plaintiff’s tecoin construction. Accordingly, when the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendants, the Plaintiff had been performing the construction work on the ground that the Defendants settled the costs of the repair work after the defect repair.
(A) The Plaintiff is entitled to seek payment of the cost of defect repair works from the Defendant Company, the owner of the building at C Hospital, in an amount equivalent to KRW 26,925,949, and KRW 66,763,946, against the Defendant Foundation, the owner of the building at C Hospital, for the cost of defect repair works.
B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff received a contract for the repair of defects from the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a contract for the repair of defects, taking into account the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged comprehensively based on the evidence of the first instance judgment, evidence Nos. 27 through 33, and evidence No. 14, and the fact-finding inquiry into the same corporation in Gyeyangsan-gu, Sept. 6, 2017