beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “1. Basic Facts in the judgment of the first instance are described in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the fact that the court finds “Nos. 14 and 15” of No. 7 of the judgment of the first instance as “No. 14 and 15” of No. 16 of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim
A. Although the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the construction price due under the instant construction contract, such as the instant sprinkler, the Defendant paid only KRW 165 million out of the construction price to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction price to the Plaintiff KRW 110 million.
B. The Defendant: (a) sold 7,125,00 won or requested the Plaintiff to supply the materials necessary for the construction of the instant golf course; (b) thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 7,125,000 to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the cost of repairing the defects of the instant water supply pipes, but the completion of the instant apartment construction was delayed, and the completion of the construction of the instant apartment, leaving it neglected without being used by the water supply management authority, thereby melting melting and melting the ground where the instant water supply system was buried, as the instant apartment was coming from the access road of the instant apartment that was used in a temporary packaging, and the Defendant destroyed part of the water supply pipes while installing the dives.
Around February 14, 2017, due to the Defendant’s error in management, water leakage occurred in the water supply center of this case. Around February 17, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform the repair works of the water supply center of this case, and the cost of the repair works was borne by the Defendant. The Plaintiff spent KRW 85,463,915 while performing the repair works of the water supply center of this case.
Therefore, the defendant.