손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The scope of the judgment in this Court rendered a claim for damages as a substitute for defect repair and a claim for damages due to incomplete performance, and the first instance court partially accepted, and only the plaintiff appealed against part of the claim for damages as a substitute for defect repair, and thus only that part shall be subject to the judgment.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraphs (1) and (4) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case being
[Supplementary part] Defendant Newdong Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Newdong Construction Co., Ltd.”) shall be deemed to be Defendant, and the remaining Defendant shall be deemed to be co-defendants in the first instance trial.
16. 16. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2..................
18.The following parts of the 18th Schedule shall be added:
Article 6(2)1 and Article 11(1)4 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 23(1)4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 36(1) and attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 39(3) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, and Article 5(2) of the Rules on the Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions, “The Defendant asserts that the said special agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 6(2)1 and Article 11(1)4 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, and Article 36(1) and attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the said special agreement shall be extended to 10 years only for defects in the part that the employer could not easily discover despite the expiration of the warranty period, and it is difficult to deem that the said provision is null and void. The Defendant’s assertion that the said provision is null and void is as follows.