1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (b) "Judgment on direct construction costs and related additional input costs for dredging construction and on the claim for the cost of waterproofing construction by pipes" and part 9 of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the following: (c) judgment on the claim for part of the construction cost," and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

B. Determination 1 on the Plaintiff’s claim for the cost of direct construction and related additional inputs, and the cost of waterproofing construction. After the Plaintiff’s notice of the completion of the construction, the Plaintiff’s claim was found to have been removed from approximately 40 cm in total through the pipes of the instant construction. However, the Defendant refused to repair defects such as dredging work and paid KRW 104,20,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 49,97,00 for dredging work for removal of soil in his own expense. Furthermore, the Plaintiff directly disbursed KRW 9,543,100 for the cost of waterproof work. The Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 64,501,494 out of the above direct expense to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 8,500,00 to the Plaintiff for the damages of KRW 40,543,494,00 for the purpose of 50,000 for the 45,000 soil of the instant case.

In this regard, the defendant's piling up soil on the conduits is a large quantity of groundwater unlike the expected site due to the plaintiff's design defect.