Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into an internal tegrative construction contract (hereinafter "the instant construction contract") with the defendant as to the Geumcheon-gu Seoul apartment 5 Dong 1102, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the instant construction contract") and entered into an internal tegrative construction pursuant to the said construction contract. The total construction cost of the instant construction contract was KRW 10,130,000 (the construction cost was added to KRW 9,200,000, but the construction cost was added to KRW 930,000,000, including waterworks) or the defendant paid KRW 7,000,000 among them.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 3,130,000 and 15% delay damages per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 8, 2016 to the day of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
나. 피고의 주장에 대한 판단 피고는, 원고가 시행한 공사 중 욕실의 실리콘마감 불량, 베란다 하수구 연결부위 불량, 안방경첩 불량, 베란다 실리콘마감 불량, 천장몰딩 불량, 베란다샷시 불량 등 여러 곳에서 하자가 발생하였고 이를 다시 공사하는 데 필요한 비용이 2,800,000원 정도 소요되는바 위 손해배상채권으로 원고의 공사대금채권과 상계한다는 취지로 주장한다.
However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff caused the foregoing defects in the construction executed by the Plaintiff only by the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and that the expenses necessary for the repair of defects are needed to cover KRW 2,800,000.
Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. Since the Defendant’s assertion that the construction contract of this case was executed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff continued defect repair work after one year and three months thereafter.