1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

(However, “The evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the first instance judgment” in the second bottom of the second instance judgment shall be sealed as “Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5,” and “the result of D’s appraisal” in the second bottom of the second instance judgment shall add “the result of this court’s inquiry of appraiser D,” and “the result of this court’s inquiry of appraiser D” in the third bottom shall be deemed to be “the amount of KRW 28.5 million” in the second bottom of the third instance. In addition, on December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to this court an application for modification of the purport of the claim with the claimed amount of KRW 37.4 million, along with the application for resumption of pleading on December 8, 2015, which is after the closing of the argument at the appellate court.

In the lawsuit for damages of this case filed against the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 7,40,00,000,000, which was borne by the Defendant according to the conciliation protocol of the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2012Ga254894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s title”) (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s title”), on the premise of set-off against the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 30,000 (see, e.g., the written application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 31, 2014). The Plaintiff’s written application for

However, a set-off under the Civil Act is an exercise of the right to form the effect of the extinction of a claim by unilateral declaration of intention and can be arbitrarily withdrawn, so the status of the other party is very unstable, so it is not allowed to unilaterally withdraw the declaration of offset.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s declaration of offset intention is a litigation act, the withdrawal of the declaration of offset intention made after the conclusion of the fact-finding trial constitutes an actual or defensive attack and thus, it cannot be accepted.

(See Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, in this case, the Plaintiff totaled KRW 28,511,853 for the repair of defects against the Defendant.