logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2016.06.16 2014가단5367
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. B is the owner of a multi-family house with the fourth floor of reinforced concrete structure C on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

The plaintiff is a company operated by D, the husband of B.

The defendant is a company that manufactures and sells complex waterproof sets and reinforced materials for civil engineering.

B. Around May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the 8,538,750 won of the construction cost of the PIB compound waterproof trial on the rooftop of the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (c)

In accordance with the instant contract, from May 201 to June 2012, the Defendant constructed PIB compound waterproof sets on the floor, wall surface, and rooftop floor of the rooftop of the instant building from the end of May 2012 to the beginning of June 2012.

As the construction area increases in the construction process, the plaintiff and the defendant increased the construction amount to KRW 9,970,000 (excluding value-added tax).

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 9,950,000 as construction price, KRW 5,00,00 on July 25, 2012, KRW 3,000,00 on July 31, 2012, and KRW 1,950,00 on August 20, 2012.

E. On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant asserted that it was due to the Defendant’s defect in the construction of the International Complex Flood Control Market, and requested the repair of defects.

F. From December 2013, the Plaintiff continuously requested the Defendant to remove the PIB compound waterproof trial sets built on the rooftop of the instant building.

Accordingly, around February 2014, the Defendant removed the PIB compound waterproof trial sets constructed on the rooftop of the instant building, and around May 2014, the Defendant removed the PIB compound waterproof trial sets built on the wall surface of the instant building and on the rooftop floor at the Plaintiff’s request.

All of the above removal costs were borne by the defendant.

G. While the rooftop floor of the instant building was in the original cement process, the Defendant removed the PIB compound waterproof sets, the remaining parts of the Maglassium (tar, asphalt machine, etc.) remains after the removal of the PIB compound waterproof sets.

arrow