1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles as to No. 1, it is justifiable that the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s damage claim and damage claim arising from incomplete performance constituted rehabilitation claims, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in lieu of defect repair against the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation company Samdo Construction Corporation. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on rehabilitation claims, contrary

B. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles as to No. 2, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment on the grounds that it is reasonable to interpret Article 9 of the Special Conditions for the Contract of this case, citing the first instance judgment, as stipulating the right to have the contractor perform the liability for the repair of defects on behalf of the contractor, and the obligation of the contractor to perform it. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

C. No. 3 (1) Where the contractor requires defect repair due to defects in the contractor’s contract construction work, and the contractor is entitled to deduct or refund the value-added tax required for the defect repair from his/her own output tax amount, the value-added tax is not substantially returned to the contractor’s own input tax amount, and thus the contractor cannot claim damages equivalent to the value-added tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39511, Apr. 28, 2006), barring any special circumstance, the contractor is not entitled to claim compensation for damages equivalent to the value-added tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39511, Apr. 28, 2006).