1. Of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, the claim of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) expanded in the trial of the court shall be entered into the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that, except for the addition of “written undertaking” in Part 6, Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on a claim for damages in lieu of a defect repair

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties to the instant construction defect 42,886,724 won 1). As to the site conditions where water can not be drained due to water leakage in the connecting part as in the instant power plant, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 42,886,724 as the cost of repairing the defect, alleging that the Plaintiff’s design of the instant construction is erroneous from the error of designing a drainage channel as fluorium, and that a concrete building should be reconstructed after removing the drainage channel. Accordingly, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 42,886,724 as the cost of repairing the defect. Accordingly, the design of the instant construction consists of two different parts from the civil engineering design and solar structure design of the instant construction. Among them, the civil engineering design is one corporation that was initially contracted by the Plaintiff for the instant construction from the initial contractor, and is Swero (hereinafter “Swero”).

(3) the forest engineering corporation (hereinafter “unforest engineering”) entrusted by the Corporation.

The defendant was in charge. The defendant was a company that is entirely different from Swewewa, and there was no succession from the plaintiff to the contract between the plaintiff and Swewewewewa, and even according to the appraisal result, the defect of the construction of the drainage channel is a defect in the civil engineering design, and the defendant is not responsible for the drainage channel construction. 2) We first examine whether the defendant bears the responsibility for the defect in the civil engineering design under the premise of the judgment on this part of the claim.

In full view of the above-mentioned facts, the first Plaintiff and the first Plaintiff are required to take account of the overall purport of the arguments.