1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for construction of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building Parking Facility (hereinafter “instant construction,” and the “parking facility” was awarded for KRW 169,950,000 for the instant parking facility.

B. In the instant construction contract agreement, the condition of Ecoos and RV level 18 acceptance was stipulated, but the instant parking facility constructed by the Defendant is physically satisfied with the above condition as a medium-type mechanical parking lot; however, it is legally possible to expropriate Ecoos and RV vehicles. Therefore, it is impossible to use the instant parking facility as a large parking facility because it is impossible to accept Ecoos and RV vehicles.

C. If so, the Defendant’s construction work violated the above special agreement, and thus, the Defendant’s construction cost required to change the instant parking facility into a large-scale mechanical parking lot that can be expropriated by Ecoos and RV cars in lieu of defect repair is claimed as damages.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant parking facility meets the above special agreement physically, but the instant parking facility is a large parking facility, and the instant parking facility is a medium parking facility and thus, there is a defect in the instant construction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, the above special agreement refers to large mechanical parking facilities.

However, according to Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 20-1 and 20-2, according to the construction contract of this case, the name of parking facilities is clearly stated in the construction contract of this case. At the time when the plaintiff and the defendant concluded the construction contract of this case, the defendant concluded the contract by presenting the plaintiff the name and financial resources of the above parking facilities to the plaintiff for a double-type mechanical parking facility sloping, but the above sloping entered the "Acub/SUV acceptance" in the above scoog, and the building of this case is physically low in height to install large mechanical parking facilities.