손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for reimbursement of the cost of repairing defects, KRW 87,64,813, and the damages for delay thereof, and filed a claim against Codefendant D (hereinafter “D”) in the first instance trial.
Meanwhile, the Defendants filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the construction cost of KRW 25,410,000 and damages for delay.
The court of the first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants regarding the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for defect repair costs as KRW 31,850,948, and 25,410,000, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for offset against the Plaintiff, and determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for defect repair costs was extinguished within the extent equal to the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment amount, 6,440,948 won (=31,850,948 won - 25,410,000 won) and its delay damages against the Defendants, and dismissed the Defendants’ claim for counterclaim against the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claim against D was dismissed.
Only the Plaintiff appealed as to the part against the Plaintiff in the principal claim against the Defendants, 5,813,865 won (=87,64,813 won - 31,850,948 won) and damages for delay thereof, and the part against which the Plaintiff lost the claim for construction cost exceeding 18,70,000 won out of the Defendants’ counterclaim (including the part against which the counterclaim was accepted and the counterclaim was dismissed).
On the other hand, since the plaintiff did not appeal against the plaintiff's claim against D, the part of the judgment of the first instance became separate and conclusive.
Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's appeal.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fact that “a recognized fact” under Section 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “a recognized ground,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance
(Provided, That part on Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial is excluded).3.