beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. Of the total litigation costs, 4/5 are the Plaintiff, and the remainder.
Reasons
1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the facts are as follows: (a) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the change of "Defendant" in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance to "A" corporation; and (b) it is citing it as it is in accordance
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the error in the construction of A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), and the contractor shall be liable for damages in lieu of the defect repair among the defect liability liability, regardless of whether the contractor has been negligent or not, pursuant to Article 667 of the Civil Act. Where the contractor is responsible for the cause attributable to the contractor, the contractor shall be liable for damages incurred to the contractor’s body and property due to failure to properly perform his/her obligation under the terms of the contract. Thus, the Defendant, the contractor, the contractor, is liable for damages due to nonperformance of the obligation under Article 67 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant, the contractor, the contractor, is liable for damages due to the nonperformance of the obligation under Article 173,99,985 won (the principal and interest recognized in the relevant defect lawsuit as a substitute for the defect repair).
3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in which facts of recognition are apparent in the records, or Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence No. 5-1, 5-2.
1) On January 9, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings against A (Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma291). On the same day, D’s representative director was considered as A’s custodian. 2) On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the amount of principal of the damage claim of this case to the Seoul Central District Court as the rehabilitation claim and the amount of KRW 173,99,99,99,94 for delayed payment, and the Defendant received a favorable payment in accordance with the first instance judgment.