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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ defense was unlawful, since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Loading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Loading”) regarding the defect repair, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in lieu of the Plaintiff’s defect repair was contrary to the said agreement.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 of the judgment, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Loading written the final settlement agreement, prepared on August 13, 2012, stating the following: “The defect due to the leakage of other types of work (such as myi, ice generation, ice frying, mashing, mashing, and floor strawing phenomenon, etc.) is exempt from Defendant Loading’s error is recognized.”

However, according to the above final settlement agreement in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, it is recognized that "the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff the claims related to the construction project after the settlement agreement of this case is reached, and the defendant's defense, which is based on the premise that there was no objection against the civil, criminal, and compensation for losses, is not a civil or criminal objection against the plaintiff as to the construction cost that the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff in lieu of the defect repair," and even according to the wording itself, it is interpreted that the plaintiff did not bring a civil or criminal lawsuit against the plaintiff, and it is not agreed that the plaintiff did not bring a lawsuit against the defendant's load with the exception of the above exempted portion (excluding the exempted portion, the exemption effect of the exemption takes place as it falls under the exempted part). Thus, the above safety defense of the defendants' defense, which is based on the premise that there was no mediation agreement about the plaintiff's filing a lawsuit against the defendant's loader in lieu of the defect repair.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Basic facts 1) On December 13, 201, the Plaintiff: Bluos et al. and Cluos 19, 6-gil 19 (School Dong).