The reasoning of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment.

Judgment

A. The reasons are as follows: ① each appraiser's " appraiser" among the 4, 7, and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed; ② the fire-fighting performance in the 4th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the "fire-resistant performance" in the 4th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is "fire-resistant performance", and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

B. The plaintiff asserts that the ratio of the fire doors installed in the apartment of this case should be 100%. The defendant claimed that the ratio of the fire doors installed in the apartment of this case should be 10%. Accordingly, the 1 set of the door subject to appraisal is composed of two doors, and the 1 set of the door and the 1 set of the face are tested, and thus the 1 set of the 1 set of the 1 set is judged separately, and the 1 set of the 1 set of the appraisal is judged disqualified only once as a result of the examination according to the appraisal of this case. Thus, the ratio of the doors installed in the apartment of this case should be 50%. The above evidence revealed that the whole purport of the arguments can be comprehensively taken into account, namely, ① the KSF 2268-1 (in the method of internalizing the fire doors, the test body shall be exposed to one side in accordance with the heating conditions set out in the 257-1 on the condition that the test is capable of being tested at the same time, and the two parts can be tested.