1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under each of the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the cited part is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] The second 15th 15th 2 pages ( October 7, 2011) is “( October 11, 2011)” and the second 6th 2, and the second 7th 7th 2, and the second 15th 7th 7th 7th 209 as “the witness of the first instance trial.”

A. We add “a fact that there is no dispute” to the fourth 1st action. We dismiss the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were not responsible for the delay of construction as follows: “The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were not liable for the delay of construction is not accepted without further review as to the remainder of the Defendants’ assertion, such as the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of construction cost.”

A. The following is added to the 7th page. The Defendants asserted that Defendant B’s liability under the instant confirmation does not exist, since Defendant B did not sign and seal the instant confirmation document.

The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not indicated in the instant certificate, but is the construction contractor, the Defendants are liable for damages to the Plaintiff. The part of the refund of the cost of the household appliances is included in the claim for damages due to delay in construction, or the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the cost of the household appliances under a separate return agreement instead of the aforementioned, can be deemed as selective assertion of the refund agreement with the Plaintiff

Even in accordance with the above, Defendant C signed the letter of confirmation in this case as the representative of Defendant B, the relation of the Defendants, the process of conclusion of the construction contract in this case, the status of the Defendants as the parties to the construction contract in this case, and the preparation of the letter of confirmation in this case has effect on Defendant C. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

[Multiple Part] The 8th 4th d'2.