손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The scope of the judgment of this court in the first instance court caused the defect in the part of the construction executed by the defendant, and the additional construction was carried out accordingly. ① The costs of the additional construction are KRW 1930,000,000,000,000 for the additional construction and KRW 2.5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
Since the defendant appealed only, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the costs of construction work according to the additional work.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for water leakage detection and pipeline construction with the cost of construction 1.8 million won, when water leakage occurred in the heating distribution machine located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, 110 Dong-dong, 603, the Plaintiff resided (hereinafter “first water leakage”). Accordingly, the Defendant carried out the said construction (hereinafter “instant water leakage”).
B. On July 2014 after the completion of the water leakage construction of this case, the water leakage occurred in the Plaintiff’s main room (hereinafter “the second water leakage”) and the following floor C, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, 110 Dong-dong, 503, and 503 river sites near the main bank, and the water leakage occurred.
C. Around that time, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to implement the construction again since the second water leakage of the instant case occurred, but the Defendant rejected the additional construction on the ground that it occurred at a place other than the part of the construction.
Accordingly, between D and D on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for water leakage detection and water leakage construction with the construction cost of KRW 1.2 million, and accordingly, the Plaintiff carried out the construction works based on water leakage detection and water leakage in this case.
E. The Plaintiff spent KRW 1.2 million for the second water leakage construction cost of the instant case, and KRW 7.3 million for the estimation cost of the remote area below the lower floor.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 19.