공사대금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and the evidence submitted to the
Therefore, the reasoning for this Court to indicate the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional parts, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The addition;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the method of repairing defects was determined by the two parties by June 15, 2017 with respect to the Amcom work, which is an individual construction work, and the Defendant did not consent to the repair method and amount, the Plaintiff is required to restore the said Amcom work to its original state until July 6, 2017. Therefore, it should not be recognized as the cost of repairing defects related to the said Amcom work. (2) As the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around August 2016, a civil construction work contract, such as stone construction and drainage work, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the basis of a contract with the Defendant, was not the form of performing the construction work entirely with the responsibility of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant determined the direction and progress and the Plaintiff’s daily payment. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for any defect to the Plaintiff.
Moreover, the Defendant agreed not to impose liability on the Plaintiff for the execution of the instant written statement to settle the construction cost of KRW 189 million as KRW 130 million.0 million.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant on each of the instant notes 1 determine the method of repairing the defects by June 15, 2017, and, if the Defendant did not agree on the repair method and amount, the Plaintiff shall restore it to its original state by July 6, 2017, and if the restoration is not performed, the restoration cost, waste asphalt and construction cost shall be deducted from the construction cost.