1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the instant case is as follows: (a) the court added or changed the same as that of paragraph (2) and added the judgment on the Defendants’ main grounds for appeal, which is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) the same is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. From the second instance judgment of the court of first instance, the number of pages 18 to 21 are as follows.

The construction cost incurred in the defective construction due to the defective construction is KRW 34,917,281 in the portion not constructed or executed differently from the design drawing (i.e., the modified construction cost of KRW 19,784,280 in the unconstruction cost of KRW 15,133,01 in the unconstruction cost of KRW 19,784,280 in the modified construction cost). The construction cost incurred in the portion not constructed or executed differently from the details attached to the contract statement is KRW 38,368,160 in the sum of KRW 7,309,546 in the aggregate of KRW 7,309,546 in the first instance judgment of the first instance court.

From the third to fifth of the judgment of the first instance, the third to fifth is as follows.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 69,309,546 won, subtracting the unpaid construction cost of 8,00,000,000 won from the appraised amount of 77,309,546 won as compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances. The defendant is obligated to pay 69,309,546 won and damages for delay.

The Defendant’s defense on the following is insufficient to prove that the Defendant asserted water supply construction works, including the cost of national housing bonds, the license tax, and the cost of water supply construction, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, were insufficient to prove that the Plaintiffs were to bear the cost of national housing bonds and the license tax, and there is no other evidence to prove this. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s defense is without merit. Accordingly, the Defendant’s compensation for damages to the Plaintiffs in lieu of defect repair (=6