beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought damages against the Defendant, each of the following claims: (a) non-construction of basic single heat construction work; (b) construction of part of outer walls (fluoring part); (c) construction of yellow bricks; (d) fluorite and snow fluorites of outer walls; (b) construction of the connecting part of roof panel; and (c) construction of strings of windows; (d) construction of strings; (e) construction of strings of toilets; (e) construction of toilets; (e) construction of toilets; (e) construction of toilets and windows; (e) construction of strings; (f) construction of strings and windows; (f) repair of strings; (f) repair of strings and windows; (f) compensation for damages caused by deception; and (f) compensation for damages caused by nonperformance of construction contracts; and (f) the remainder of the claims are dismissed.
Since only the defendant appealed against this, the object of this Court's adjudication is limited to the above quoted part.
2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part are as follows: “Defendant C” in the judgment of the first instance as “C”; “Defendant B” and “Defendant Company” in the judgment of the first instance as “Defendant”; “the result of the on-site inspection by this court” in the last part of the judgment of the first instance as “the result of the on-site inspection by the first instance court”; “the result of the on-site inspection by the first instance court” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance as “the result of the on-site inspection by the first instance court; and “the Defendant Company” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to eliminating “the Defendant Company” (hereinafter “
3. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In the process of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was a defect in the instant building due to the Defendant’s performance of construction works or defective construction, etc., different from the terms and conditions set forth in the instant construction contract.
Therefore, the defendant is not a yellow stone with the roof of the building of this case to the plaintiff.