1. Each appeal filed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), and Defendant C’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is partially dismissed or added as follows, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants cited the “additional Judgment on the Claim for Reduction of the 3.... Additional Judgment on the Claim for Reduction of the Damages for Delay” and the “Additional Judgment on the Defect in the instant building” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding to each corresponding part the “Additional Decision on the Defect in the instant building” as to the matters alleged in the trial

2. The 9th page 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, shall be the witness of the court of first instance as “the witness of the court of first instance.”

Each "this Court" in the first instance court's 9th 19th 10th 15th 15th 13th 14th 2th 15th 6th 6th 17th 2nd 17th 17th 18th 18th 1st 1st 10th 10th 10th 10th 2nd 200.

제1심판결 10면 12행부터 14행까지의 “㈐” 부분을 아래와 같이 고친다.

Although Defendant B and C asserted that it was inappropriate for Defendant D to accept the Plaintiff employed for the management of the construction site of this case, each of the statements Nos. 34 and B No. 35-21 of the evidence No. 35-21 of the above Defendants’ assertion is insufficient to acknowledge it, and no other evidence exists to prove the facts alleged by the above Defendants, the phrase “No. 85” of the first instance judgment of 12, 8 of the first instance judgment of 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, and 3, respectively, shall be deleted in the reply (Evidence No. 85) submitted to this court on December 8, 2016, stating the purport that the above KRW 10,000 is deemed to have been paid as part of the construction price of this case, and the phrase “No. 85,” of the 13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 13, and 4, respectively, shall be deleted.

[ long as Defendant B and C submitted a written reply to the court of first instance on December 8, 2016 (No. A. 85, but did not state it in the oral proceedings, the above evidence can only be deemed as evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants submitted such documents to the court of first instance.