1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The plaintiff alleged in the plaintiff's assertion was entrusted to the defendant around August 18, 2009 with the work of replacing water pipes of the second floor of housing owned by the plaintiff and replacing rooftop lele lele lele lele lele lele lele le lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele lele e.g., the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the total construction cost of KRW 5,060,000 and the construction cost of KRW 4,9

(1) The court below held that the plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 5,870,40 in total for the first, second, and third construction costs paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the first instance, KRW 5,060,00 in total for the defect repair construction costs paid to C, and KRW 12,930,40 in total for additional damages incurred by the defendant's defective construction works, KRW 5,200,000 in total, KRW 12,930,00 in the court of appeal, and the purport of appeal was modified in the court of first instance as above, and thus, it is only within the scope of appeal).

A. A. Around August 18, 2009, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant supplied water pipes for the second floor of the Plaintiff’s housing owned by the Plaintiff and supplied water pipes for the second floor of the Plaintiff, but further, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered damage, such as the Plaintiff’s leakage due to defects in the construction performed by the Defendant solely on the entries or images of evidence Nos. 5 through 7, 11, 12, and 15 through 20.

B. Furthermore, even if it is assumed that the Defendant suffered loss to the Plaintiff due to the defect in the construction works executed by the Defendant, according to Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Article 30(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the waterproof Construction Work three years, and the Water Pipeline Construction Work two years, the Defendant claimed that the period of warranty liability is one year pursuant to Article 670 of the Civil Act, while the Plaintiff asserted that the period of warranty liability is two years or four years pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is first applied as a special rule under the Civil Act,