1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim and the instant counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) except for the use of “Defendant Jin Construction” of the first instance judgment as “Defendant”; and (b) Defendant B as “B”, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (b) thereby, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, unlike the design drawing, was executed by changing the panel of the roof part of the instant case to a flat panel, which is not a structural frame panel, even without the Plaintiff’s request or consent to the alteration of construction, and the Defendant did not perform waterproof tape work after the execution of the said panel. The Defendant’s error in construction caused the Defendant’s deterioration of design and caused water leakage on the roof part of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages in lieu of defect repair to the plaintiff B and each plaintiff who performed the roof waterproof and asphalt writing work, and the amount of damages is KRW 26,00,000, which is the expenses actually paid by the plaintiff for the design waterproof work of the building of this case after the occurrence of water leakage.

However, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 10,740,00 not paid out of the construction cost of the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant and the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff for the remainder of the construction cost are set-off after the maturity date. As such, the Plaintiff’s declaration of set-off against the Defendant was served by the service of the preparatory document dated January 19, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of KRW 15,260,000 after offsetting the Plaintiff.

(b) The judgment of this Court is based on Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and Eul evidence 3-2, part of Gap evidence 7-1, Gap evidence 7-1, part of the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser D, the above appraiser and Eul company (F) of the first instance court.