손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,496,280 as well as 6% per annum from December 13, 2016 to April 26, 2018.
1. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff (contractor) and the Defendant (contractor) entered into a contract for the construction of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) on the land B in Jung-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) for the construction of new buildings (excluding the contract amount of KRW 535,000,000, value-added tax). On October 2, 2015, the registration of initial ownership was completed on October 30, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. There are various defects such as non-construction and erroneous construction in the building of this case constructed by the plaintiff's assertion.
Therefore, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair defects, but did not comply with the Defendant, and thus, it is sought to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of repairing defects in lieu of the defect repair.
3. Determination
A. The existence of the defect - Upon receipt of the cause of the claim - In full view of the respective entries or images of Gap evidence 2 and 5 (including the paper number), and the results of appraiser D's appraisal of the defect (including the results of a supplementary appraisal) as a whole, there are various defects such as the attached sheet in the building of this case constructed by the defendant, and the cost of repairing the defect is equivalent to the amount stated in the attached sheet.
B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff demanded an illegal extension work that divides the first floor into a double floor, and that such illegal extension work causes various defects, such as ground subsidence, due to the increase in the load of the building itself, and thus, the relevant defect part should not be liable to the Defendant or be considered as negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
However, in light of the following circumstances, evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to accept the above argument of the defendant, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
The illegal extension works alleged by the defendant.