1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the plaintiff is added.

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, etc., the defect subject to the Defendant’s guarantee should be interpreted to include the failure to perform the obligation to repair the defect within the guarantee period or the liability period, even though the defect subject to the Defendant’s guarantee was erroneous in the execution of a public soil proposal, which is a contractor prior to the guarantee period or liability period, but the Plaintiff, the beneficiary, at the expiration of the guarantee period or the liability period, discovered the error in the construction, and subsequently delayed the request

However, the Plaintiff discovered the defect, which occurred due to the error in the construction of the public soil, within the guarantee period or the liability period of the Defendant, and claimed the remuneration for the public soil, but the guarantee accident occurred due to the failure to implement the public soil.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the warranty bond in lieu of the defect repair of the " concrete spawn".

B. (1) Where the parties to a contract prepare in writing a disposition document, which is a disposition document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized as well, barring special circumstances.

In particular, in a case where a construction contrary to the objective meaning of the text causes a serious impact on the legal relations between the parties, the content of the text should be more strictly interpreted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da21621, Nov. 27, 2014). On the other hand, a warranty bond that was concluded between a construction mutual aid association and a contractor, such as the Defendant, entered into with the construction mutual aid association.