beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money additionally recognized below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified; and (b) the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination as stated in the following 2.2. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil
After the change, the 7th, 6, 9, 13, 14th, 23, 16,50 won 16,681,50 won 7th, 6,15th, 11th, 9,583,50 won 16,500 won 16,238,500 won 9th 7,12th 9,603,689 Won 32,258,689 won 9th 13,17 and 12th 1,78,321 won 8,43,3219, 17 and 12th 31,20,365, 365, 692, 92, 12912, 135, 1397, 1397, 125, 1397, 1257, 1397, 1257, 137, 197,
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The shock case was not included in a written estimate at the beginning of the appeal, and it was additionally installed at the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant changed it to a change in the situation on its own thereafter.
Therefore, the defendant should pay 5,200,000 won for the cost of the shock case he ordered.
(2) Although the instant carpet floor failed to meet the horizontal level prior to the Plaintiff’s construction, and if there is a defect in the construction of the upper part of the upper part of the floor, it is unnecessary to repair the entire floor and repair the defects by means of removing the entire floor and re-construction at a sprink and a sprinking the upper part of the floor, even though it is possible to repair the defects by means of spreading the final strings in order to prevent the stringing phenomenon, and it is unreasonable to require excessive excessive costs.
B. (1) Determination (1) The descriptions of evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 9, 12, 13, and 14 are to install shock cases between the original and the Defendant in a written estimate (Evidence No. 9).