beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the construction balance and the part on the claim for damages for delay and the part on the counterclaim are reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the primary construction cost due to the Plaintiff’s additional construction work and the claim for return of the conjunctive unjust enrichment, and it is justifiable to have recognized the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the repair cost to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) who is the contractor based on the part of the result of the appraiser H’s appraisal of defects.
In so doing, there were no errors by recognizing facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court reflecteds that the instant modified drawings were modified construction, and thus, the construction by this reflects the Defendant’s direction, or at least the conclusion of the instant modified contract with the conclusion of the construction in accordance with the modified drawings, which led not to any further problem. The instant construction was defective or non-construction at the new building on April 20, 2010, which held a meeting related to the completion of the Plaintiff and new building.
Even if it is deemed that the first scheduled final process is completed and the main structure is completed by the construction as agreed upon, and that part of the items classified as defect in the appraisal report prepared by H is not the part constructed by the Plaintiff according to the instant modified drawings, or by the direction of the Defendant and the supervisor, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize the cost of defect repair that the Plaintiff is liable to pay for the remainder of the parts, except for those parts.