1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of multi-family house D (hereinafter “instant house”) with C, etc., and concluded a contract with the Defendant on July 2, 2012 by setting the construction cost of KRW 46,20,000 (including value-added tax), November 15, 2012 as of the completion date, and 0.1% as of the delay penalty rate of KRW 0.1%.

B. The Plaintiff’s payment for the instant facility project was KRW 4,620,000, as the price for the instant facility project, to the Defendant on July 13, 2012; and

9. Payment of KRW 32,120,000 in total, including KRW 5,500,000 on February 7, 11 of the same year, and KRW 15,000 on December 21 of the same year.

C. In the process of performing the instant facility works, the Defendant’s error of omitting the work of connecting the drain pipes of one of the three floors of the instant housing, resulting in water leakage in the floor of the said housing room and the ceiling of the lower floor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), part of witness B of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As a result of the defect in the instant facility works, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000 (2,00,000 to H who made the manufacture and construction of pipelines through the construction of the boiler Co., Ltd.) with the cost of installing the said facility (10,745,350 (6,000,000 won to G who performed the actual repair work through the construction of the corporation of Y, and 3,000,000 won to F, for the purpose of detecting the installation cost of the said facility (2,50,000,000 won to G who made the actual repair work through the construction of the corporation of Y). However, the Plaintiff did not reduce the Plaintiff’s claim in accordance with the preparatory document. However, the Plaintiff did not have claimed that only KRW 1,50,000,000,000 for the construction cost of the said facility according to the preparatory document.