beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased a house with KRW 140,000,000 from the Defendant and KRW 72.4m2 above-ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate,” and the above above-ground housing is referred to as “the instant building”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership for the instant real estate on April 24, 2017, and received the delivery of each of the instant real estate from the Defendant around May 10, 2017.
B. After receiving each of the instant real estate from the Defendant, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was running a remodeling project through D for the purpose of the director-general, on the rooftop, on the wall of the pipe.
D completed remodeling construction of the building of this case by painting the entire building of this case and painting rooftop waterproof construction in the amount exceeding 10,000,000 won of the construction cost from the Plaintiff.
C. At the time of the said remodeling project, the Plaintiff received a written estimate from D that the said remodeling project contains a sum of KRW 12,070,000, which is equivalent to the cost of project for the rooftop flusium waterproof waterproof and the external cover of KRW 12,070,00,000, as well as the cost of wood and personnel expenses.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, each video of Gap evidence 7 to 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff seeks payment of the amount equivalent to KRW 14,670,000 to the Defendant on the ground that the sum total of KRW 14,670,00,000 for each written estimate received from D by the construction business operator was required to repair the rooftop number that existed at the time of the purchase of the instant house.
(A) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, witness D’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, the number of the signboards, the defects of which existed at the time of the purchase of the instant house, seems to be the cause of warranty liability or liability for damages due to nonperformance.