1. The plaintiff assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Intervenor.

purport.

1. The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is based on the evidence submitted to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition or modification as follows, with the exception of the addition or modification as to “2. added or corrected.” As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(No separate document shall be attached to the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the attachment of the judgment). 2. Additional or amended 4. 12. The following shall be added to the scope of liability set forth below.

The market price at the time of the destruction of a product, and where the product is damaged, the cost of repair or restoration shall be deemed ordinary damages in cases where repair or restoration is impossible or excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233, Jan. 23, 1996). Furthermore, an appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected insofar as the appraisal method violates the empirical rule or lacks rationality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da84608, 84608, 84615, 8462, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health room at the time of the instant case, the second floor of the instant building and the section for common use, the structure of the instant building, and the floor of the instant building are removed, and the appraisal method or re-construction cost cannot be calculated based on the empirical rule-based method or re-construction method.

However, the appraiser of the first instance is the fire of this case in re-establishment.