beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. On August 1, 2007, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was not responsible for the repair of the defects in the construction work, and that it was not responsible for the repair of the defect in the DNA type work under the law of the courses. The plaintiff asserted that ① since the non-vid area in the golf course of this case was not due to the plaintiff's construction defects but due to the defendant's neglect in management, 100% clothes rate is shown. ② The plaintiff performed the construction work by re-subcontracting the sewage level work with the defendant. On August 1, 2007, the contract was terminated with the defendant and the defendant accepted the construction site. On August 1, 2007, the plaintiff asserted that the part of the non-vid area in the golf course of this case should be excluded from the plaintiff's obligation to repair the defect within the scope of 18 parts of the Pudem Corporation and the Pudem Corporation adjacent to the club, which falls under the category of 18,504,100 parts of the subcontract in the law.
The conciliation is established upon entering the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol, and the conciliation protocol has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of judicial conciliation, and has its original effect, so if the conciliation is concluded between the parties, the rights and obligations relationship based on the previous legal relations shall be extinguished, and a new rights and obligations relationship following the content of conciliation is established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821 Decided June 29, 2006). Such a protocol of mediation is recognized.