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. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 7 and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 7 (including branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal results of the first instance appraiser E, and the whole pleadings. The descriptions of Eul evidence No. 2 are insufficient to reverse it, and there is no other counter-proof.

The plaintiff is a local government, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of an engineering work business, building work business, soil work business, landscaping work business, etc.

B. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) is “the instant construction project”, which means that “the maintenance of the FJ C Park and the installation of sports facilities (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

(2) from April 24, 2009 to April 24, 2009

8. A contract shall be concluded by being prescribed by Presidential Decree up to 22. 2. (In the front and rear by October 11, 2009);

“A contract for construction work was entered into.” C. Around June 2009, when the Defendant was proceeding with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) by subcontracting the part of the instant construction work, etc., it is necessary to take measures, such as supplementing and constructing the retaining wall with a macro-mick cover on the surface of the embankment, strengthening the foundation of the retaining wall, and constructing drainage facilities at the upper part of the retaining wall.

‘The positive report' was submitted to the effect, and some supplementary construction was implemented with the approval of the plaintiff around July 1, 2009.

On October 9, 2009, the Defendant completed the instant construction work and received a completion inspection from the Plaintiff on October 19, 2009, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 579,310,000 in total as the construction price for the instant construction project, including the increased portion due to design modification.

E. However, around September 23, 2010, part of the retaining wall of this case (10 meters in length, 8 meters in height) is collapsed and earth and sand.