beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim extended and added in this court are all dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal and objection.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the total volume of the packing construction in the design modification of the Plaintiff’s assertion was reduced, the construction amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant would be KRW 528,248,148,148. Since the Plaintiff already paid KRW 529,920,00 to the Defendant, the construction price of the packing construction in the instant case remains.
From February 2016 to August 15, 2016, the period of construction stipulated in the instant contract, the Defendant commenced the instant packaging construction, and completed the construction on or around January 12, 2017, the period of construction stipulated in the instant contract. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 156,90,00 for the total of 78,40,00,000, and the total of the prices of materials used in the instant construction, and KRW 20,467,150,00, and the total of the prices of materials used in the instant construction, and KRW 55,141,90,00, and KRW 2,893,00,00 for the volume of the materials invested in the instant packing construction, and the Plaintiff paid the said money. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the penalty for delay in packing construction arising from the delay in packing construction in the instant case.
Since the Plaintiff was demanded from the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City to repair defects arising from the package construction of this case and paid KRW 9,124,00 for the repair of defects, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair.
B. The Defendant alleged that the packaging construction of this case was completed around August 15, 2016, the construction period stipulated in the contract of this case, and the expenses alleged by the Plaintiff were paid on behalf of the Defendant are limited to the amount of money that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay, and the defects alleged by the Plaintiff are not attributable to the defects in the packaging construction of this case, but to the defects in the Plaintiff’s execution or management.