All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, concluded, on November 25, 2010, that the instant construction works, which are construction works for automatic collection facilities of household wastes in a newly-built apartment complex, were built as agreed upon and completed as a result of social norms, and that such construction works ought to be repaired due to incomplete defects. However, even if the completion of the instant construction works, as alleged by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was delayed and completed on July 4, 2014, the lower court agreed to compensate for delay at a rate of 1/1,000 at the time of the conclusion of the instant subcontract, solely based on the evidence as stated in its holding and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for liquidated damages on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s actual loss due to the delay of the instant construction as equivalent to the amount calculated on the basis of the above liquidated damages rate.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the legal nature of the construction of this case, whether the construction of this case is completed, the interpretation and probative value of the disposal document, and the computation of damages and damages due to defects

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court found that the waste collection facilities installed in relation to the instant construction are not connected with the main collection facilities, and that the Defendants were unable to normally operate, the lower court, on January 14, 201, stay at the site a complaint before the normal operation of the main collection facilities, and all the expenses incurred therein.