2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the occurrence of defects and the amount of damages is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment, except for dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

In the attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance court, the amount of damages for the items omitted from the public- underground-23 underground PIT walls and the amount of damages for the items omitted from the surface management of the ceiling shall be deemed "0." The total amount of damages shall be deemed "412,222,704", "432,381,194" from the third bottom to "412,222,704", and the fourth part shall be deemed as follows. The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows: 193,369,1026, 989, 2869, 784, 2739, 754, 215, 3015, 301, 304, 264, 2616, 364, 206, 360, 464, 257, 2564, 265, 2016

Then, according to the results of the fact-finding conducted on July 10, 2015 on appraiser B of the first instance trial, [the public ground 11] of each of the two sub-sectors E/V framework alteration work (a broad-scale general construction work) shall be 8,594,805 won at the time of calculating the expenses presented by the Plaintiff based on the expenses presented by the Plaintiff, but this is nothing more than the purport that the remuneration expenses presented by the Plaintiff are the same, and the above items are not included in the initial claim amount, and the plaintiff did not change the claim by reflecting the fact-finding results at the trial.] In the column of the "determination of the "determination of the "determination of the area of the ground-based parking lot" of the ground-based parking lot be easily discovered as it occurred at any time by occupants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff requested the defendant to repair within the warranty period.