All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) and the grounds of incidental appeal.

1. As to the ground of incidental appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s ground of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are nothing more than using such knowledge or experience as a supplementary means to determine certain matters, if the court requires special knowledge and experience in determining certain matters. Thus, in a damages lawsuit, where there are multiple appraisals contrary to the same facts, the court adopted either of them or recognized facts based on only one of them.

Even if it does not violate the empirical rules or logical rules, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11954 Decided February 28, 2008). The fact-finding or the ratio of limitation of liability for the purpose of offsetting negligence or ensuring fair burden of damage in a damage compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da71484, Feb. 12, 2015). Based on the appraiser AV’s appraisal result, the lower court acknowledged that there was a defect in the construction related to the steel frameding of the instant building on the grounds of the appraiser AV’s appraisal, and subsequently limited the Plaintiff’s liability for damages concerning the construction related to the steel frameding of the said steel framed to 60%, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the said appraisal result has a limitation that cannot be avoided from selecting a measuring point.

Examining the records in accordance with the above legal principles, the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, but its conclusion is justifiable.

In this regard, the principle of free evaluation of evidence is against logical and empirical rules.