1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance cited in the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for modification or addition as follows, and thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th 17th eth 17th eth 17th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g. “B 8 and 9th eth eth eth eth eth 14 and

“507,596,100 won” in the first instance judgment of 6 pages 336,354,588 won for the repair of defects in the first instance judgment of KRW 960,852,227 (=21,872,437 won recognized as a result of the first instance inquiry of appraiser F in the amount of KRW 314,482,151), as well as 453,156,740 won for the repair of defects in the heating work added as a result of the fact-finding inquiry of appraiser F in the first instance judgment of the first instance, and 171,340,89 won for the repair of defects in the heating work added as a result of the fact-finding inquiry of appraiser F in the first instance, and 453,156,740 won for the remainder of 7 and 13 others for 13 others for the following reasons: “Additional 36,580 won for the repair of defects” in the first instance judgment of 81, 50.

The 12th text of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows.

“C. In the lawsuit, the Defendant, 509,294,733 won (=1,07,20,000 won for unpaid construction payment - 44,570,000 won for repair of defects - 507,695,487 won for repair of defects - damages 15,639,780 won for delay of construction, and the Plaintiff’s dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation from January 5, 2012 to January 28, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, deemed reasonable to dispute as to whether the Defendant’s obligation exists or not, as a result of the completion of construction, from January 5, 2012 to January 28, 2016, and from the following day.