beta
Text
1. The defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation in the judgment of the first instance, including claims added and reduced in the trial.
Reasons
1. The basic facts;
2. The argument about the assignment of claims and the scope of recognition of defects, and the reasoning for this part of this Court is that, except for partial dismissal or addition, the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
Of the table No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 6, the term “3,069,616,644” means “3,069,616,648” and “3,069,616,648” (Evidence No. 2-1). Of the judgment of the first instance court No. 6 [based on recognition], the term “Appraiser H (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) in the first instance court No. 6 [based on recognition] shall be read as “Expert H (hereinafter referred to as “Appraiser”) of the first instance court.”
The summary of the argument such as the sequence and item [public 1-18] is to determine the difference between the material cost and the labor cost in calculating the defect repair cost for the shortage in the thickness of the construction of lerarasium, so the difference between the material cost and the labor cost should be additionally recognized.
The result of appraisal by an appraiser shall be respected unless the method of appraisal, etc. is against the rule of experience or is so obvious that it is unreasonable or unreasonable.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). An appraiser expressed in the initial appraisal report the opinion that “the relevant type of work was normally performed, but the construction cost was calculated on the basis of a lack of thickness,” and in the written appraisal supplementary statement, the appraiser expressed that “the labor cost is not applicable, considering that the use of materials is insufficient,” and “the construction cost was normally calculated on the basis of the fact that the work was performed on the basis of a lack of thickness.” As such, the appraiser’s determination that the same type of work as the normal thickness does not occur, is obvious that the empirical rule is against or unreasonable, etc.