2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant, who runs a construction business, with respect to the external fence, gate, window, roof, etc. (the construction contract was not prepared; hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) and paid KRW 14,100,000 on several occasions, depending on the progress of the construction between October 11, 2014 and November 7, 2014.

B. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a receipt for the above KRW 14.1 million to the Plaintiff. In doing so, the Defendant stated that the receipt for the above KRW 14.1 million was stated as KRW 5 million, KRW 1 million, KRW 5.8 million, KRW 5 million, KRW 1.2 million, KRW 1.1 million, KRW 1 million, and KRW 14.1 million, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties is next to the defendant's execution of the construction of this case.

In addition to the plaintiff's assertion of the claim, the plaintiff did not perform the defective construction work or collect construction waste. The plaintiff asserts that 3.6 million won of damages in lieu of the defect repair (2.0 million won of the repair cost of the bank gate, 500,000 won of the wall repair cost, 1.1 million won of the stone repair cost), and that 1.4 million won of the total amount of damages due to the non-performance of the waste collection obligation or the return of unjust enrichment is obliged to pay for the damage compensation or the return of unjust enrichment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there is no error regarding the construction work of this case by the defendant, and that the plaintiff's assertion is nothing more than detention or collection.

B. Determination as to whether there was a defect in the part 1 main gate, etc., the Plaintiff: (a) immediately after the Defendant performed this part of the construction, the main gate was not completely opened due to the support stand of each pipe pole; and (b) at the Plaintiff’s request, there was a significant defect that occurred from the time the Defendant removed each pipe pole to the aftermath of the upper gate; and (c) in order to repair it, KRW 2 million.