beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 135,938,606 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 21, 2013 to October 8, 2015.
Reasons
(c)be liable to pay;
According to the appraisal on October 31, 2014 by appraiser E, 1,604,820, 1,604,820, 1,604,820, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the above KRW 1,604,820 as compensation in lieu of defect repair, since it is recognized that there was a snick or defective defect in the outside container package. In order to repair it, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the above KRW 1,604,820 as compensation in lieu of defect repair.
In regard to this, the plaintiff alleged that the (original) manle of defects did not have been executed by the plaintiff, but the appraiser has appraised the defects by comparing the related documents, such as drawings and estimates, and the current status thereof. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.
According to the appraisal result of appraiser E 5,933, 247, 933, 247, 247 appraiser E on October 31, 2014, the amount of claims for different construction items (won) is different from the size of steel products that had not been submitted to the outside wall board of the two external wall board. However, the estimate (Evidence A 1-2) is written as "C-type lecture 100*50*2T (3.56km/m)" but actually being constructed as "C-type lecture 60*30*10*10*2T (1.9km/m)." Since the difference in construction cost is recognized as a cause of 5,93,247, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above 5,933,247 won as compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the changed construction work was executed by agreement with the defendant, and that the construction cost was replaced by the difference.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the video of evidence No. 15, is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is not acceptable.
The part that did not recognize the liability for damages in lieu of defect repairs is examined as follows. The defendant asserts that there was a defect arising from the non-construction, defective construction, or different construction as stated in the table 7's "Items" in the part constructed by the plaintiff.