손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Defendant is a person engaged in hanok and cultural heritage repair, etc. with the trade name of "C"; (b) the Plaintiff is a son of D; (c) the Plaintiff is damaged to the left side of Hanok-gun located in Gyeongbuk-gun, North Korea (hereinafter "the instant building"); (d) the building was used to run miscellaneous works, etc.; (c) the construction of the instant building was commenced from April 18, 2015; (d) the repair work for the instant building was conducted on or around May 25, 2015; and (d) the fact that the instant building was laid down and was completely collapsed on or around May 28, 2015; or (d) the purport of the entire pleadings is recognized by taking into account the following as a whole: (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; and (e) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and video products; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around April 11, 2015, the Plaintiff contracted to the Defendant for the construction of the instant building, the damaged absentee replacement works, etc., and the Defendant, while implementing the miscellaneous construction of the instant building, caused the instant building to collapse due to defective construction. (2) The Defendant, despite the contractual obligation to safely complete the repair of the instant building under the instant contract, destroyed the instant building due to the collapse of the building.
3. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for all damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance of the obligation under the above contract.
B. The Defendant’s assertion did not conclude a contract related to the repair of the building of this case with the Plaintiff, and only upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant was paid a daily allowance of KRW 200,000 per day while working as a wooden hole for 19 days at the construction site of this case.
The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.
3. A determination as to the existence of the contract is sought, the defendant.