손해배상(기)
1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B, which claimed KRW 301,602,123 and damages for delay.
. The purpose of setting aside a difference is to prevent water erosion or new growth, notwithstanding the existence of a drainage device, so it is difficult to dismiss the appraisal result of this case solely on the ground that the actual existence of water erosion has not been tested and examined, since the purpose of setting up a difference is to prevent water erosion or new growth, and it is difficult to reject the appraisal result of this case.
[Public 3-40] Underground Parking Lots 1,741,847 won, which is the reduced repair cost, should be recognized, since the same purpose can be achieved by the old distribution instead of the establishment of a water drain pipe for the drain of the drain of the underground parking lot.
Considering the length of the drain, it is insufficient to view that only the data submitted by the Defendants alone can achieve the same purpose as that of the public law provided as the result of the instant appraisal.
[Public 1-38] The provisions of the Enforcement Rule of the Parking Lot Act that do not meet the standards for parking lots are not compulsory, and it is difficult to trust the results of appraisal because each supplement of appraisal is dismissed.
* The results of the final appraisal supplementation are excluded from defects.
(See state 3). [See state 3-71] See state 3-1] Landscaping 3,483,523 won, 3,523 won, which is the defect repair cost at the time of appraisal, shall be regarded as the defect repair cost of this item, since there is a possibility that there is competition in the maintenance and management of the plaintiff of landscape trees, and it is improper to regard the whole trees with the dead as the responsibility of the defendants. The trees removed without knowing the cause of the test at the time of appraisal in this case cannot be seen as the responsibility of the defendants because it is difficult to find out the cause of the test.
According to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have requested the repair of defects existing in the landscape trees from April 2014, and since there are no special reasons for the Plaintiff to intentionally remove the defective part, the removed part of the trees is deemed to have existed and have been removed.