beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
(b). b.
The attached details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in the statutes.
C. Fact-finding 1) The Architectural Design Office Co., Ltd. prepared a design drawing of the instant housing in accordance with the design supervision agreement entered into with the owner A with respect to the instant construction project, and performed supervisory duties. The main text of the design drawing is as follows: “If any change is made to the contents of the design drawing, it must be notified to the owner, designer, and supervisor and processed them after consultation.” 2) The design drawing of the instant housing in the design drawing is to install a power hand room (600*600*600) and install a exhauster (250) for the purpose of the bathing room and toilet. However, the Plaintiff did not establish it.
In addition, although "200 highly strong PVC pipe" is used as excellent pipes, sewage pipes, and sewage pipes on design drawings, in fact, it was constructed as "100 PV pipe" with a unit price lower than the unit price, and in the case of partial man-person, it was constructed differently from design drawings (400*400*400*450, each type of man-made handle 600*600*1000).
Although the indoor pipes, water supply and demand pipes, and hot water supply and demand pipes are to be constructed in the same room or X-L pipes on the design drawing, they were actually constructed as a PB pipe with a unit price less than a unit price.
3) After examining the part of the Plaintiff’s construction work, A filed a dispute between the Plaintiff and A on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take measures, such as remuneration, even though the Plaintiff had been constructed differently from the design drawings and specifications. The content certification sent by the Plaintiff to A on October 16, 2013 is indicated as the Plaintiff’s design drawings. 4) Meanwhile, the “special engineer’s claim” of the construction work daily bulletin as of March 29, 2013, prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff, stated that “the stack is installed so as to be an unconstruction key in consultation with the construction owner, as it is impossible to install it in reality,” and on May 30, 2013.