1. The defendants' appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the “Expert J” of the first instance court No. 6, 11, shall be dismissed as “Expert J” of the first instance court; and (b) the Defendants are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the Defendants are required to emphasize or make a new decision on the assertion in this court under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. An appraiser of the defendants' assertion-related item 1) calculated the cost of repairing defects by applying a charging method to the heat between floors less than 0.3 meters without consideration as to water leakage due to external inflows and subsidence, chromosomes, such as deterioration of heat performance, deterioration of internal structure due to melting melt, and deterioration of earthquake-proof performance. However, according to the results of the appraisal of the apartment complex of this case, the Defendant company, a contractor, inevitably has a key to prevent water leakage defects in the concrete process, constructed a simple part on the floor. However, according to the above circumstances such as 1.3m of concrete cracks at the actual construction site, 1.5m of concrete cracks from the surface treatment method [1.3m of the apartment complex of this case], 1.5m of the appraisal and treatment method [1.m., 3m of the appraisal and treatment method], 1.m. of the appraisal and treatment method [1.m., 1.m. [3m. of the appraisal and treatment method], 1.m. / [1. 1m. of the appraisal and treatment method];