1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) that exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. The scope of the judgment of the court in this case claimed for the payment of damages for repairing the defects of an apartment seal work as the principal lawsuit, and the defendant claimed for the payment of damages for damages for repairing the defects of the painting work, as a counterclaim, and for defamation and intimidation. The court of the first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, ② the expenses for repairing the defects in the counterclaim of the defendant, ② the claim for damages for damages for defamation and defamation, respectively. Of the defendant's counterclaim, the part of the claim for damages for damages for defamation and the part of the claim for damages

Accordingly, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the expenses for repairing defects, intrusion upon residence, and claim for consolation money related to defamation as the defendant filed an appeal against the part against the defendant regarding counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant acquired the ownership of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 103 Dong 1404 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and entered into a contract with D for the Human Data Processing Corporation on May 22, 2014 with D for the said apartment (hereinafter “the instant Human Data Processing Corporation”). The Plaintiff subcontracted the aforementioned Human Data Works to D for the Human Data Processing Work, and performed the said Human Data Works from June 20, 2014.

B. While the Plaintiff was running the instant painting construction, E (E; hereinafter “E”) who is the Defendant’s husband began to intervene in the entire interior of the instant interior works, and the Defendant, on June 23, 2014, had terminated the construction contract with D, would directly proceed with the direction of the construction and the payment of the construction cost.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s execution of the instant painting work under the Nonparty’s order, but ordered the Defendant to suspend the said painting work on June 28, 2014, and thus, the said construction work.