1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 24,130,623 and KRW 10,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,130,623 from August 17, 2016, and KRW 14,130,623.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for construction of the reinforced soil retaining wall B at KRW 43,318,00 (including value-added tax) with the purchase price, and completed the construction of the reinforced soil retaining wall construction (hereinafter “instant construction”). On July 17, 2015, the Defendant completed the construction of the reinforced soil retaining wall (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The boundary of the above land B and the adjoining land owned by others is a line that connects the location of the lower court to the lower court, but the lower court’s completion of the retaining wall, which was built by the Defendant, to the lower court, directly connected the lower court to the lower court, and directly connected the lower court.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the Plaintiff’s liability for warranty under Article 667 (Contractor’s Liability for Warranty) of the Civil Act or liability for damages arising from nonperformance of the duty to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, since the Plaintiff suffered damages by re-execution of the reinforcement work by restoring the retaining wall to its original state by ascertaining the location of the boundary point while performing the construction work without a drawing, which led to the Defendant’s error of the location of the boundary point.

B. (i) According to the above facts as to the contractor's assertion on the warranty liability, the construction of this case can be said to be defective as it is inevitable to remove the retaining wall on another's land. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the contractor is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, who is the contractor, for the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the defects in the construction of this case.

Sheet Defendant requested the Plaintiff to design drawings, but without delivering them, executed the construction on the land at the present time of the match by stating that the construction would be carried out according to what is set up.