beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.24 2016나54632

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following and the judgment on the claims added by the plaintiff in this court as stated in Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary parts] Part 5, 20 to 6, 50, 500, 500, 500, 100, 200, 200, 200.

③ It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C and D ordered to open the roof tower of the instant building and to change the first floor into the parking lot only with the images of evidence Nos. 13 and 26-1 through 5.

In addition, according to the testimony of the witness I and K of the first instance trial, the issue of opening the tent of the entrance and rooftop of the third floor entrance was not related to the approval for use. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the construction work related to the ceiling at the entrance of the third floor entrance is a cause for delaying the approval for use.

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall consist of the 13th to 6th 16th .

As seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone opened the rooftop of the instant building and ordered Defendant C and D to change the first floor into the parking lot.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone requires Defendant C and D to open the entrance door of the third floor of the instant building to the extent greater than the scope prescribed in the design.

such a demand is not deemed to be illegal or unjustifiable.

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's additional claim in this court

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) KRW 7,970,00 in total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ unnecessary instructions = KRW 270,000 incurred in July 30, 2012; (b) KRW 3,200,000 paid in November 25, 2012; and (c) KRW 2,700,000 paid in relation to the parking lot for the first floor of the building; and (d) KRW 1,800 paid in relation to the parking lot for the first floor of the building.