1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the cleaning business, etc. of septic tanks with the trade name “E” in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

B. Around July 13, 2015, F closed the septic tanks buried in the underground of the instant building, and directly connected the toilet drainage pipes of the instant building to the sewage pipes connected to the lower terminal treatment site at the lower terminal (hereinafter “instant construction”). During that process, F omitted the construction of the toilet drainage pipes for the third floor.

C. In relation to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 2.2 million to the Defendant, including KRW 1 million on July 17, 2015, and KRW 1.2 million on July 20, 2015, and KRW 2.2 million on the same day. The Defendant remitted KRW 2.2 million to F on the same day.

On the other hand, on July 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a simplified receipt (500,000 won for the closure of septic tanks, and 1.7 million won for the installation of toilets) to the Plaintiff.

While continuing to use the toilet of the instant building, the Plaintiff confirmed that the occurrence of water leakage and malodor in the underground room around May 2018, F did not connect the drainage pipe of the toilets of the third floor to the sewage pipe connected to the sewage terminal treatment plant, and the excreta from the toilets of the third floor was discharged into the closed septic tank, thereby passing over the septic tank and flowing over the existing walls and pipes.

The plaintiff paid 3.20,000 won to the repair work of its part.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 and video (including branch numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The contractor of the instant construction works is the Defendant, and the Defendant did not properly perform the instant construction works, causing considerable damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff at least the amount stated in the claim for the construction cost out of the remuneration costs.

B. The instant construction work from the Plaintiff.