2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company engaged in the housing construction and sale business, and the Defendant Company is a company engaged in the funeral hall and funeral-related service business.

B. On February 27, 2006, the Plaintiff Company purchased each of the above lands from the Defendant Company, the owner of three parcels of land, including Daegu Dong-gu B, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 2006.

C. Since April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff Company commenced construction of the ground-breaking construction in order to newly construct a multi-family housing on the land of ten parcels, including the instant land and seven parcels jointly owned by C and D, and during that process, it became clear that waste, such as waste concrete, was buried in the instant multi-family housing site.

Plaintiff

The company requested to dispose of the above landfill waste first to the Si Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd., and the Treatment Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Construction Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., paid a total of 641,305,000 won to four companies

Since then, the plaintiff company increased the construction cost to be paid to the KCAT to the KCATA. 641,305,000 won.

E. Of the total waste disposal cost of KRW 641,305,00, the cost required for the disposal of wastes buried on three parcels of the instant land is KRW 305,129,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, Gap evidence 10-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is that, at the time of entering into a sales contract for the instant land with the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff Company already buried wastes that require high disposal costs for the instant land underground, and thus, the Plaintiff Company claims compensation for damages based on the seller’s warranty liability on the premise that there exists “a defect that does not have any quality or condition anticipated to be equipped with ordinary goods.”