A. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on March 20, 2015, under which the construction contract was entered into with the content that the Plaintiff’s project would replace the c second floor of the Plaintiff’s housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the d,200,000 construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Defendant completed the instant construction project on March 27, 2015.

B. The Defendant, while executing the instant construction, failed to construct rainwater treatment facilities, constructed the right-side roof, resulting in water leakage into walls and slabs on the right-hand side of the outer wall, resulting in a decrease in water leakage, a decrease in water waterproof effect, a decrease in the inside wall and the second floor contamination, etc., and a total of KRW 7,134,000 is required to repair it.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of appraiser D's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 7,134,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff according to the above facts of recognition. 2) The plaintiff alleged that expenses for repairing defects exceeding the above amount are incurred, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the statement of the evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant cannot be deemed to have any defect in the construction of this case, and the leakage of the wall of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred from the beginning of the construction of this case, and even if it is recognized as a defect, the construction cost is unduly excessive. However, the defendant's assertion is not accepted because there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.

B. The part of the claim for damages equivalent to the rental fees is that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the rental fees because of the Defendant’s failure to lease the instant house due to the defective construction works.