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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the defendant added “2. Additional Judgment” to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court; and (b) No. 2-C of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The part of the "in-house" in the 2nd part shall be deemed to be materials or “in-house”, and the 4th part 3-A.

In addition to the fact that "104,242,50" in the 5th sentence is used as "104,242,500 won", the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the contractual relationship, etc. of the instant construction, the Defendant merely concluded a contract under which the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work amounting to KRW 70,00,000,00 with respect to the instant construction project, and there is no contractual relationship with the company that performed the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”). In the end, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer money or the subrogation payment on the premise that there is no obligation to pay the construction work for the instant construction project, and even if the obligation to pay is recognized, the Defendant did not have the said obligation to pay for the portion exceeding the said KRW 70,00

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a verbal conclusion of the construction contract as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the construction cost deduction or set-off should be deducted or set-off from the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff, since there were defects, such as water leakage prevention, etc. in the instant building, and the construction was carried out again due to the failure of the construction. As such, the expenses for the construction and re-construction should be borne by the Plaintiff as a warranty liability.