공사대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's "the defendant" of the second action from the second next second second of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the defendant (the representative D at that time); the defendant's "the defendant" of the second action from the third second second to the "the defendant (the representative C at that time); the witness C of the third part "the witness C" of the second part to "the witness of the court of first instance; the defendant's extraordinary meeting of the defendant and each representative of the apartment of this case" of the 6 and the 7th part of the first part to "the defendant's extraordinary meeting of the defendant and each representative of the apartment of this case (E, F, and G)" are as follows; and the last part of the apartment of this case is as stated in the main sentence of Article 120 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the above part as stated in the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The portion added to the trial;
F. The Defendant first priority on the assertion that the Defendant added in the trial of the trial, and even according to the instant modified contract, the defect repair construction work details that the Plaintiff is obliged to perform, as in the instant modified contract, included the part of the fraturative repair work of the underground parking lot of the instant apartment, but did not perform such work. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim amount should be deducted or offset the cost of the fratological repair work of the underground parking lot calculated by the appraiser of the first instance trial from the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim.
However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance C, as seen in the above "basic facts", the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the instant modified contract, and only maintain the "compact" repair work, deeming that there was a serious problem caused by the "compact" rather than the "compact" among the "air parking lot rupture and water leakage repair work" planned before the instant modification.