The plaintiff is the defendant.

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part are as follows: ① The part (including the attached Form 1 and 2) from the last 5th to the 65th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth in the statement of “1. Basic Facts” in the first instance judgment.

As indicated in paragraph (1). ② “23,518,082 won (the sum of the cost of repairing defects after a pre-use inspection)” of KRW 23,819,196 (“Attachment 1,23,515,163 [Attachment 3] 304,03 concerning the additional cost of repairing defects of KRW 24,474,029 [Attachment 3] - 24,169,96 won including the sum of the additional cost of repairing defects of KRW 8-19,23,531 won (the sum of the cost of repairing defects of KRW 10-05,240,498 x 918 x 918 x 6918), the sum of the cost of repairing defects of KRW 1,23,510] stated in Annex 7’s 4,500 [Attachment 3] included in Annex 3 [Attachment 1, 2363] and 3] indicated in Annex 2.

(b) the modified portion (including attached Forms 1 and 2) from the last 5th to the 6th 5th eth eth.

[2] From the last 5th to the 6th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth.

“2) Although Defendant D attempted to repair part of the defects, there exist any defects such as the sum table by item of defect in common use, the sum table by item of defect in attached section 1, the sum table by item of defect in attached section 2, and the sum table by item of additional defect in attached Table 3 in the apartment of this case, and in order to repair the apartment of this case, the appraiser is required to pay the same amount as indicated below under the premise that “part Do Do Do Do Do” is “after the crack of external wall,” and the appraiser is required to add or correct the defect repair cost through each