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 regarding the instant case is as follows, and the Defendant’s assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added as to the assertion made in the trial as set forth in paragraph (2). As such, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

[Supplementary part] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance is to revise the Defendant’s “AWC” as “Defendant”; “Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd.” as “Defendant and Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd.”; “Defendants” as “Defendant and Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd.,” “the result of the appraiser B’s appraisal” as “the result of the appraiser’s appraisal in the first instance trial,” and “the result of each inquiry reply following a request for the supplementation and supplementation of the first instance trial.”

The calculation standard of “1.” The Plaintiff asserts that the defect repair cost of the door of this case should be calculated based on the removal and reconstruction of the door as follows. The Defendant asserts that the door framework of the door of this case has an independent fireproof function and it is possible for the Defendant to install a new door on the existing door framework in the construction technology, so even if the door framework is not newly built, the defect repair cost can be calculated based on the removal and reconstruction of the door of this case, not on the whole removal and reconstruction of the door and the door framework, on the ground that the defect repair cost can secure the fireproof function of the door even if it does not manufacture a new door framework.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 18, and the result of appraiser Eul's complementary appraisal, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to determine the fire-resistant performance repair cost of the fire doors of this case as the whole removal and reconstruction cost of the door, even the door, and the door mold.

① This case.