1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Re-written part] The last part of Section 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the following main notes: “The plaintiff's conjunctive assertion is merely a different method of attack and defense against the claim for the construction cost included in the claim for the transfer money. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost is again made within the scope of KRW 11.2 million according to the main argument.”

Article 11 and 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 19 of the Decree on the Defect of the Defendant’s assertion and the Details of the unconstruction work) “(Article 19 of the Decree on the Construction Work)” is re-written in [Article 19 of the Decree on the Defect of the 27 July 2012 and the details of unconstruction work attached to the written appraisal application (hereinafter “the following details of defect and unconstruction work”)]. From the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, Articles 2 and 10 of the Act shall be re-written in the following cases: (3) The non-establishment of the pre-division (Article 22 of the Defendant’s assertion and non-construction work details) was not established in the factory operation (2). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, among the appraisal documents submitted by the appraiser C of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff was not a party to the pre-construction work” as to the above paragraph 22 of the Decree on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have installed the aforementioned appraisal report.

Rather, the appraiser C in the first instance trial.