손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract and a construction supervision contract (i) the Plaintiff on September 27, 201, and Defendant Sejong Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sejong Construction”).
2) As between the Corporation and the Corporation, the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Corporation”) shall construct an agricultural product processing plant in Pyeongtaek-gun C.
As to the contract amount, the contract amount was set at KRW 810,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from October 1, 201 to December 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
A) In the event that the Plaintiff and Defendant Chy Construction entered into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant Chy Construction entered the instant contract into a cost calculation statement, compiled statement by type of work, and the unit price by type of work, and entered the contract amount of KRW 820,240,878 (excluding value-added tax) in total (i.e., part from 15 pages out of the evidence A No. 4; hereinafter “instant specifications”).
(2) The Plaintiff entered into a design service agreement on the instant building with Defendant B, who operates the architect office, and accordingly, Defendant B entered into the design service agreement on the instant building.
On October 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a supervision agreement with Defendant B on the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant supervision agreement”).
B. Upon completion of the instant construction, Defendant Sejong-gun (hereinafter “instant building”) was built pursuant to the instant contract and newly built two units of factory buildings on the ground of Hamyeong-gun C (hereinafter “instant building”) in Pyeongtaek-gun (Seoul), and subsequently applied for approval for use on January 17, 2013, and obtained approval on January 25, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, 7, 11-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction of Defendant Chova Construction has a duty to construct a building with a good faith and a safe structure of the contractor, as prescribed by the instant contract and the Building Act, and to deliver it to the owner, in violation of this duty.