Defendant Matro 74,335,059 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 31, 2013 to June 11, 2014.

Basic Facts

On June 9, 201, the Plaintiff, jointly with the Enzed Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Enzed Construction”), received construction cost of KRW 3,454,689,770 (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction project”) from Defendant Matro to KRW 2,963,230,00 (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction contract”), and the Defendant’s architect is a supervisor of the instant construction project.

In September 2012, Defendant Matro demanded reconstruction to the Plaintiff on the ground that Aluminium aluminium was not used differently from the specifications, and that there was a conflict of opinion, but the Plaintiff re-reconvened the Aluminum aluminium at its own expense.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 24 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the argument of the plaintiff as to the claim for damages caused by nonperformance of obligations against the defendants, or tort, according to the construction contract of this case, the contract of this case is not only the contractual obligation to faithfully inspect the performance and quality of Aluminum in relation to the plaintiff, and to faithfully cooperate with the other party as a supplementary duty under the good faith principle between the parties to the contract.

However, on July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff asked Defendant Metero, Seoul, about what is used as a seal of Aluminium aluminium, the said Defendant merely pointed out that it was limited to Aluminite, but did not give any instruction as to the influence.

Since the defendant Matro neglected the above duty, the defendant Matro has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 241,050,000 won due to reconstruction of Alatium due to the nonperformance of obligation.

Defendant.