손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be found in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 23 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
The Plaintiff, as the owner of the Jongno-gu Seoul and its ground wooden site and the apap 40.83 square meters of a single-story house (hereinafter “the instant Han-story”), sought the design of the instant Han-style Building E from the Ddesign Office E. As the design of the said design office, the design drawing was completed with the content of “ nine replacement of the instant hanok, seven replacement of the pole, one new construction, and removal of the unauthorized extension section 13.19 square meters of the said design office.”
B. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff received a report on large-scale repair from the Jongno-gu Office, the competent authority, based on the above design drawings, and entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant and F on September 20, 2010, setting the construction cost of KRW 170 million for the instant hanok’s large-scale repair work, and four months after the commencement of the construction period (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).
(However, the contractor stated in the construction contract has been prepared only in the name of F).
On September 25, 2010, the Defendant and F subcontracted the instant construction project to G in a lump sum for KRW 113 million for the subcontracted project cost (the subcontractor was drafted in the name of the Defendant, not the contractor under the instant construction contract). On October 6, 2010, around October 25, 2010, the construction and the staff in charge of the Jongno-gu Office visited the instant construction site to the construction site by Jongno-gu Office for work members, and conducted construction works beyond the scope of the project to be repaired, such as the removal and removal of both the roof and columns of the instant hanok, and ordered the suspension of large-scale repair construction on the ground that he did not report the removal of the building.
On November 18, 2010, the above large-scale repair report was cancelled.
The defendant and F shall be revoked on November 2, 2010.