1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant, at the time of Seopopopopo-story C (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the effect that the roof construction work shall be performed and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 6,500,000 to the Defendant as construction cost (hereinafter “the first construction contract”).

B. Although the Defendant completed the roof construction of the instant house on October 11, 2012, there were defects, such as rain smelting from the roof of the instant house.

Around August 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 1,560,00 to the Defendant instead of the Defendant’s share of KRW 2,90,000 out of the costs of re-construction and re-construction, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to implement re-construction on the roof of the instant house.

(hereinafter “Re-construction Contract”) and the Defendant’s construction work under the re-construction contract (hereinafter “instant re-construction”). (c)

On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff’s statement of the performance of the defect repair of this case is called “the execution note of this case” to the effect that “if a defect occurs, the Defendant will perform the defect repair work, and if the Defendant is unable to perform the defect repair work, the full amount of the amount necessary for the defect repair shall be compensated.”

“To prepare and affix a seal to the Defendant, and accordingly the Defendant signed and sealed the letter of execution of the instant case.

On August 21, 2014, the Defendant performed re-construction on the roof of the instant housing in accordance with the re-construction agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) since the Defendant performed the instant re-construction, leakage occurred due to the defect in the roof of the instant housing from May 2015; and (b) the cost of KRW 5,665,00 is required to perform the repair work for the roof of the instant housing; and (c) thus, the Defendant substituted the Plaintiff for the defect repair of the contractor.