1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and then serving the Defendant by public notice, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on July 22, 2015 following the issuance of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on July 14, 2015 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from July 14, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a contract with the Defendant for a warranty period of KRW 36,30,00 of the construction cost by setting the warranty period for the rooftop waterproof construction, etc. of the instant tenement house (hereinafter “instant tenement house”) five years, and accordingly, the Defendant performed a waterproof project on the instant tenement roof.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract” or “the instant construction project”. However, the waterproof paint, which had opened on the rooftop within the warranty period stipulated in the instant construction contract, was seriously exceeded, and even though the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to perform the supplementary construction, the Defendant did not perform the supplementary construction work.

Accordingly, around August 2014, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, re-leeped a rooftop waterproof in terms of the cost of KRW 10,550,000 through another construction business operator.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the above money as compensation in lieu of defect repair work.

The plaintiff had a water leakage phenomenon on the rooftops and walls of the apartment house in this case due to defects in rooftop waterproof construction executed by the defendant.