하자보수금 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or replacement as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A portion used for adding or cutting;
A. According to the first instance judgment of the first instance court No. 12, the part added, even if the omission of the lower floor of the Washington is deemed a defect, the Plaintiff needs to conduct a cryping at least on the grounds of dust prevention, aesthetic view, etc., so the cost of KRW 15,529,175 should be recognized as the cost of repairing the defect. However, as long as the omission of the lower floor of the Washington is not considered as a defect, it is difficult to recognize the above cryping as the cost of repairing the defect, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.
B. The defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant should calculate the cost of repairing defects in the emult product (unit price KRW 6,561, total amount KRW 62,819,106 per liter), since the type of emult is not specified in the design drawing, even if there is a defect in the non-construction without construction, the defendant should calculate the cost of repairing defects in the emult product (unit price KRW 6,561, total amount KRW 62,819,106) in the emult No. 34 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance and other defective items disputed by the defendant.
Therefore, first of all, as to whether the defendant constructed a paint prevention paint on the balcony wall of each household as designed in the design drawing, according to the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings (including reference materials submitted by the defendant on May 26, 2015). The result of the test that the plaintiff requested the Korea Living Environment Examination and Research Institute to conduct a test on the paper supplementary to the paper that he produced around April 2005, and completed the construction of the apartment building of this case.