손해배상(기) 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The plaintiff A's preliminary defendant E added by this Court.
1. The reasons why this court should explain are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. With respect to the Plaintiff A’s claim for the construction cost, the Plaintiff Company received a contract for the instant repair work from the Defendant Company. Of the above repair work, the Plaintiff Company received additional construction work equivalent to KRW 105,884,100 at the Defendant Company’s request. The Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff KRW 76,840,000 as the construction cost.
On the other hand, among the defects that occurred in the repair work and the additional work of this case, the roof cumulative part is not the responsibility of Plaintiff A, and the cost necessary to repair the defects that occurred in the repair work of this case and the additional work of this case is 5,691,300 won.
Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the contract price of KRW 81,052,80 (i.e., the contract price of KRW 57,700,000 for the additional construction work amount of KRW 105,884,100 - the contract price of KRW 76,840,000 - the defect repair amount of KRW 5,691,30) and the delay damages therefrom.
B) While the Plaintiff asserted that he was awarded a contract for the instant repair work from the Defendant Company, the Defendants asserted that Defendant E was awarded a contract for the instant repair work, and that Defendant E was awarded a contract for the said repair work to the Plaintiff, so at least Defendant E is liable to pay the said payment and damages for delay to the Plaintiff. 2) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was the contract for the instant repair work to Defendant E, and Defendant E was awarded the said repair work to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, since no contract has been concluded between the defendant company and the plaintiff company A, the plaintiff's claim for construction price against the defendant company A is without merit.
On the other hand, Defendant E recognizes that the repair work of this case was awarded to Plaintiff A, but the additional amount of construction work claimed by Plaintiff A.