beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal, the lower court did not perform the Defendant’s obligation under the supervision contract as the project supervisor on the ground that the wall and roof of the 2nd floor of Hdong were constructed into a sandd position panel.
The plaintiff did not accept the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the non-performance of this part against the defendant, on the ground that there was a negligence in failing to perform his/her duty of care under law.
The ground of appeal is without merit due to the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.
Furthermore, in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on default liability, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the defendant's appeal
A. In the same construction project, the damages liability due to nonperformance under the supervision agreement by the project supervisor and the damages liability due to nonperformance under the contractor’s contract are independent or the same economic purpose arising out of different causes. As such, the so-called “joint and several liability” that is extinguished if one of the overlapping parts becomes extinct due to repayment, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da89320 Decided February 26, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da229023 Decided December 28, 2017). Even in cases where one of the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable set-off his/her counterclaims against his/her creditor, the obligation is practically satisfied with the same purpose as the performance, payment in kind, or deposit was performed, and thus, the effect of the set-off on the extinction of the obligation ought to be deemed to extend to the other vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable as to the total amount of the extinguished obligation.
Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548 Decided September 16, 2010