beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim against the main defendants added by this court are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this decision are as follows: (a) the statement of "No. 3" of No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment"; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's primary defendants as to the plaintiff's argument as to the plaintiff's primary defendants, and therefore, (c) it
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s primary Defendants’ negligence in executing the construction work of the apartment of this case caused damages equivalent to KRW 368,373,155 (i.e., KRW 1,062,891,682 as cited in the first instance court of the instant prior suit to KRW 226,083,437 as additionally quoted in the appellate court of the instant prior suit - KRW 920,601,964 as repayment by the primary Defendants).
This constitutes the so-called “damage Extension” caused by the Plaintiff’s property, which is the contractor, due to the primary Defendants’ failure to perform their obligations under the contract, and thus, the primary Defendants are obliged to pay the said money and the damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) Where a contractor’s failure to perform his/her duty under a contract agreement causes damage to the body or property of a contractor, the contractor is obligated to compensate the contractor for the damage unless he/she proves that he/she had no cause attributable to himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da113667, Sept. 26, 2013). 2) In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff, the contractor, was liable to compensate for the damage incurred to the conjunctive Defendant who acquired the claim for damages by the sectional owner due to the defect in the apartment sold by him/her, that is, the primary contractor, within the scope of the obligation under the contract, by the primary Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s property was incurred beyond the scope of the obligation under the contract.