The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case, on the ground that the Defendants, the contractor of the instant apartment construction, completed the instant apartment construction and received construction payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant contract and the final alteration contract, insofar as each of the above contracts has not been invalidated or revoked, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants obtained profits without any legal ground as to the difference amount solely on the ground that there is a defect in construction work, etc., and ② in light of the language and text of the instant contract, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants are obligated to pay the difference naturally in accordance with the contract.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the judgment or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendants are liable for the warranty against defects in the course of construction, based on the following: (a) the Defendants performed part of the defect repair work; and (b) the Defendants did not make any lawful change in design; and (c) the Defendants did not incur more construction costs than construction costs according to design drawings; and (d) limited the Defendants’ liability to the extent of 80% in accordance with the principle of equity or the

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the limitation of liability, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The defendants.