공사대금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Of the appeal costs, the part between the plaintiff and the defendant is the defendant's participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgments are added with respect to the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal 1) As to the labor cost of KRW 35 million incurred for the instant reconstruction, the Defendant did not request F and the Defendant’s Intervenor to supplement the defects arising from the construction, and did not order the additional construction. Thus, the Defendant does not have the obligation to pay the expenses incurred for the instant reconstruction. 2) Although the defects in the environmental pollution prevention facilities completed due to the instant construction (hereinafter “environmental pollution prevention facilities”) are pertaining to the part of the civil engineering works executed by the Defendant’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff is a specialized company installing environmental pollution prevention facilities, and D subcontracted by the Plaintiff is a patentee of the Environmental Pollution Prevention Facilities Act.
Therefore, the Plaintiff designed not only the environmental pollution prevention facilities of this case, but also the part of the civil construction, and the entire construction work of this case, including the part of the civil construction work.
Since the Plaintiff is responsible for overall construction supervision over the production and installation of the environmental pollution prevention facilities of this case, the Defendant has a damage claim against the Plaintiff in lieu of defective repair of the environmental pollution prevention facilities of this case, and it shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s claim
B. On the facts acknowledged by the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion regarding the labor cost of KRW 35 million incurred in the instant reconstruction project, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant’s Intervenor constructed concrete structures after re-subcontracting construction work, and the Defendant’s Intervenor constructed concrete structures on August 2016.