채무부존재확인
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the selective counterclaim claims added by this court are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant determines as follows with respect to the additional arguments, etc. presented by the court of first instance.
2. The addition;
A. As to the joint tort claim, the defendant asserts that the triridge Construction has a duty to use only both soil and sand that does not impede the growth of trees, and that the plaintiff has a duty to verify whether it is a high-quality soil and sand, and if not, the plaintiff confirmed whether it is a high-quality soil and planting trees to the above triridge Construction without fulfilling the duty to order it to take out the brought-in soil and sand, and therefore, the plaintiff has a duty to compensate the defendant for the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in replacing the soil and sand.
The plaintiff is obligated to take necessary measures, such as informing the defendant who is the contractor of the defective discharge of soil of the chemical supplied in the implementation of the landscaping project and requesting the replacement of soil or reinforcement of drainage facilities.
However, prior to planting trees, the Plaintiff was aware that the soil of the instant chemical group had to take appropriate drainage measures because the water of the instant chemical group is very poor and is likely to be damp. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s planting trees without partially laying the oil mission to facilitate the smooth flow of soil can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier or as stated in Eul’s evidence (including the paper number).
However, only the fact of recognition alone allowed the Plaintiff to use the bad soil of Samdo Construction.
There is no evidence to deem that there was a common recognition on the use of defective soil, and otherwise, it is recognized.