하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 440,367,981 and KRW 302,692,386.
1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the Defendant’s motion for return of provisional payment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those determined by the following three. As such, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the judgment of the first instance court No. 4 is "the result of the appraiser B's appraisal and the result of each supplementary appraisal by the appraiser B" as "the result of each part of the appraisal by the appraiser B and the appraiser C at the first instance court and the result of the partial appraisal, supplementation, or inquiry about the above appraiser."
Items 10-5, 10-9, 10-5, and 10-5 of the table in paragraph (3) (section 11 through 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance) of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows:
According to the standard detailed map (DA-47-002) on the defendant's construction work (the defendant) on the part of the 10-5 underground floor PIT outer wall for public use (the surface abutting on soil) for the determination of defects in the claim amount (the cost) of item (the cost of claim amount), the design of PIT is directed not to construct liquid waterproof in the case of the former by dividing the "where groundwater level is lower than the basic side surface and the pressure of water is insignificant than the basic side surface" and "where groundwater level is higher than the basic side surface and the high pressure of water is higher than the basic side surface, the part of the PIT outer wall of the apartment of this case is lower than the basic side surface, so this part should be excluded from the defect.
In principle, it is reasonable to determine whether a defect occurred in an apartment building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da18762, Oct. 15, 2014) based on the drawing for approval for use of the apartment building of this case. In accordance with the drawing for approval for use of the apartment of this case, the Defendant’s failure to execute waterproof construction on the upper part of the underground IT PIT outer wall is a defect of up to 100 GL. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s failure to execute waterproof construction on the upper part is a defect.
On the other hand, the defendant is not cited in the approval drawing of this case.