1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the retaining wall construction cost of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the southyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 5 million on May 26, 2014, KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million on June 10, 2014, and KRW 5 million on June 20, 2014, and KRW 29.6 million on July 21, 2014, in lieu of the payment of the construction cost, the Plaintiff paid KRW 14.1 million on May 27, 2014, and KRW 484 million on May 29, 2014, respectively.

C. Around June 20, 2014, the Defendant completed the instant construction work.

However, around October 23, 2014, the reinforced soil retaining wall built by the defendant was partially collapseed, and the plaintiff was required to complete the repair work on November 29, 2014 and completed the repair work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As a construction business operator who receives the Plaintiff’s assertion reinforcement soil retaining wall construction, the construction business operator should perform the basic construction of the concrete floor and then put the brid between them with sufficient soil and sufficient soil.

However, while the Defendant received the instant construction, due to the error in construction, the retaining wall of the instant reinforced soil was collapsed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is claiming against the Defendant for the payment of the 23 million won and damages for delay incurred by the Plaintiff for the repair work as a substitute for the repair of defects.

B. The defendant asserted that the construction of the instant case was properly executed and that it was safe at the time of the inspection of structural safety of reinforced earth retaining walls and stone embankments implemented around October 2014.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff filled up at least one meter on the retaining wall of the reinforced soil, caused rainwater to flow into the reinforced soil due to the error of drainage construction, and reinforced soil due to the error of construction of new building without sufficient separation distance on the reinforced soil.