The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for the payment of the construction cost and the defect repair among the counterclaim claims.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the claim for additional construction costs among the principal claim in light of the records, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim for additional construction costs on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court was justifiable in determining whether the instant construction works were defective on the basis of the design drawings of the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as of March 24, 2007 and the 30th of the same month, on the premise that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) to perform construction works in accordance with the specifications attached to the instant amendment, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction of the outer wall of the instant building was not defective from the substitute stone to the office stone, the lower court agreed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant modified and constructed the outer wall of the instant building to the office stone to the office stone.

On the ground that it is not enough to recognize that construction by Oral Scluos is a higher construction than that by a substitute stone, the difference between the material cost according to the modified construction shall be recognized as damages.

However, this decision of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

First of all, records.