1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

In the list of pages 6 and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following items shall be removed or added as follows:

The claim of the Defendant’s Morse Co., Ltd. (No. 38) is based on the judgment of the Defendant’s Morse Co., Ltd. (No. 38), the floor of the liquid waterproof room is the second floor of liquid waterproof, and the wall of underground floors are the second floor of liquid waterproof, and if liquid waterproof is constructed according to the drawing without any indication of thickness, it shall not be deemed a defect. It is unreasonable to calculate the difference between the construction cost of the measured thickness of liquid waterproof as the defect repair cost.

In principle, the criteria for determining defects are the drawings for the approval of use, and if the thickness of liquid flood control is insufficient, there is a high possibility of water leakage and it is likely to hinder the function of the plan, and the poor execution of liquid flood control was investigated as a result of the on-site investigation by the appraiser.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14 and the appraiser A's appraisal and supplementary results, water leakage occurred frequently in the underground parking lot, electricity room, etc. of the building of this case, the water leakage of underground floors is determined as one cause, and water flow flows out at a low place, so it is determined that water leakage can occur from the wall and water leakage can occur in the slab.

Therefore, the appraiser's judgment that calculated the difference between the cost of construction by measuring the thickness of liquid waterproof thickness based on the standard for approval of use is not deemed significantly unfair. Therefore, this part of the argument is rejected.

[Public 42-02] On the underground parking lot, on the underground parking lot with excellent pvc pipelines, on the underground parking lot with excellent pvc pipes, there is no indication on the design drawings, and in general, on the construction of hot water.