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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an occupant who resides in No. 502 of Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant was the head of the instant apartment around December 201, as an occupant who resides in No. 505 of the instant apartment.

B. On December 17, 201, the Defendant, who held office as the head of the instant apartment, contracted the instant apartment color and waterproof construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to D representative E in terms of construction cost of KRW 24,00,000.

C. On August 16, 2012, after the completion of the instant construction, the Plaintiff occupied the instant apartment No. 502, and thereafter, there was a defect such as water leakage, etc. in the instant apartment No. 502.

The above D, which the Defendant contracted the instant construction work, was an unregistered construction company, and the Defendant contracted the instant construction work to the above company with no qualification or ability to perform the construction work, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the defect in the instant construction project or by tort. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages (i.e., construction cost of KRW 2,280,000 for repair cost of KRW 340,000 for repair cost of KRW 2,280,000 for damages).

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages caused by defects in the part of the instant construction to the Defendant. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Defendant is not a construction business operator who performed the instant construction, but merely a head of the instant apartment complex, and cannot be deemed to bear the liability to compensate for damages caused by defects in the part of the instant construction.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine.

B. According to the evidence No. 3-2, the construction business of this case was carried on under contract with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport without being registered.