손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the first preliminary claim added by this court are dismissed.
2.The addition is made by this court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of the basic facts and the plaintiff's primary claims is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The first preliminary claim (1) even if the Plaintiff did not recognize the Defendant’s liability to compensate for damages in lieu of defect repair, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff removes the mixing of the apartment outer wall of this case, the Defendant would compensate for the expenses.” Thus, even if based on the above agreement, the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 48.5 million to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed on the above content to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was not obligated to pay KRW 48.5 million due to the nonperformance of the obligation to compensate for damages, since the Defendant agreed to remove any mixed crowdfunding attached to the instant apartment outer wall, but failed to comply with the agreement.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 15, it is recognized that the defendant requested cooperation from the head of the management office of the Gangseo-gu complex, including the apartment of this case, and the head of the management office of the Gangseo-gu 1 through 10 complex, "the defendant requests the defendant to submit to the head of Gangdong-gu Office a certificate of permission to engage in the act issued after filing an application for permission to engage in the act with the head of Gangdong-gu Office, along with a written consent of at least 2/3 of the occupants, because the defendant requested to remove the mixing."
However, evidence Nos. 21, 22 and Nos. 3 and 2.