1. The provisional attachment deposit guarantee fee and the cost of applying for defect appraisal in the principal lawsuit of the plaintiff (the defendant in the principal lawsuit) added at the trial of the party branch. 4,568.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) add “the instant building” (hereinafter “instant building”) and “B” on June 12, 2012, 2012 following the entry of the building on No. 2, No. 2, 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) refer to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance other than the alteration of the building on June 11, 2012, as it is stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s dismissal part of the instant suit refers to the payment of KRW 4,568,650 that was made with the deposit for provisional attachment and the fee for the application for appraisal of defects in the instant suit, and the Defendants seek the payment of KRW 4,500,00 that was made with the additional construction cost appraisal cost from the instant counterclaim. However, since the amount paid with the litigation cost or the cost of the instant case can be repaid through the procedure for determination of the litigation cost amount under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it is deemed that there is no benefit to seek compensation as a separate positive loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da96997, Mar. 24, 2011). Therefore, this part of the

3. Determination on the main claim

A. Compensation for damages due to the failure to perform construction, erroneous construction, defects and delay of construction: The amount recognized by the 21,185,776 designated parties specified that they are individual qualifications under the name of the defendant company in the column of the construction contractor of the construction contract of this case, and whose individual identification is affixed by the designated parties are as seen above. It is reasonable to view that the designated parties jointly and severally guaranteed the supply and demand obligation of the defendant company with respect to the construction work of this case. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the failure to perform construction, erroneous

1. Urban gas construction works: In full view of the contents of evidence No. 3 of the recognized amount of 1,670,795 won and the purport of the entire pleadings by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the defendant company agreed to install urban gas facilities at the intervals of time in the instant construction contract.