손해배상
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim extended in the trial of the court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the rejection of the following evidence submitted by the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The rejection of evidence is not sufficient to recognize that the cracks, etc. of the Plaintiff’s building in this case were caused by the continuous leakage of water supply or the illegal extension of water supply, and thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the cracks, etc. of the Plaintiff’s building in this case were caused by the evidence Nos. 26-1 to 56, Eul’s evidence Nos. 29 to 30, Eul’s evidence Nos. 38 to 40, Eul’s evidence No. 43 to 52, Eul’s evidence No. 59, and the fact inquiry about appraiser E
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. Thus, as long as the defendant's appeal is without merit and the claim for counterclaim damages is not recognized, the counterclaim claim as to the damages for delay expanded in the court of first instance is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.