A. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purification of contaminated soil and the remodeling of gas stations (hereinafter “instant construction”) due to the outflow of contamination of the gas stations located in Chuncheon City C (hereinafter “instant gas stations”) with the construction cost of KRW 290,40,000, and for the construction period from March 18, 2013 to December 17, 2013.

B. The Defendant completed the instant construction work.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As a result of the Defendant’s defective construction of the instant construction, there were defects such as leakage of oil from oil pipelines in oil stations and leakage of oil pressure.

As a result, 46,800,000 won is claimed for damages equivalent to the defect repair cost.

B. On December 17, 2013, the date of completion of the agreement, the Defendant completed the construction before August 2014 and received a fire-fighting inspection from the competent authority.

The plaintiff could not lease the gas station of this case for 8 months from the date of the scheduled completion of the construction.

In addition, the Plaintiff was performing the defect repair work for about one month from February 2016 due to the Defendant’s defective construction work, and during that period, the Plaintiff did not receive the rent from the lessee of the gas station in this case.

Therefore, as a result, 27,00,000 won (=3,000,000 x 9 months), which is the amount equivalent to 9-month rent, is sought.

3. Determination

A. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal as to the claim for damages equivalent to the defect repair cost, the fact that there was a defect such as the leakage of oil from the gas station pipelines of this case due to the defendant’s negligence in the construction process of the construction work of this case, such as securing slves confidentiality and melting defects, and the fact that the amount equivalent to the repair cost is 33,757,823.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages unless there are special circumstances.