1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) corresponding to the following amount ordered to pay.

1. In the first instance trial within the scope of the judgment of this court, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in lieu of the repair of defects in the building, and the defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost as a counterclaim.

The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit, and accepted part of the defendant's counterclaim, and only the defendant appealed against the counterclaim. The part of the principal lawsuit is also transferred to the court, but the scope of the court's trial is limited to the part against the defendant among the counterclaim.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following changes, as to the facts of recognition, the judgment on the cause of a counterclaim, the cause of a claim of the principal lawsuit, and the defense of a counterclaim set-off. Therefore, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

3. The altered part of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 7 2,707,00 won - Not more than recognized shall be changed following the body sculptures of the roof board of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 7 5 e.g., the following:

In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal by appraiser C of the first instance trial following the 8th roof board - Non-recognitiond appraiser C of the first instance trial, the construction contract of this case is acknowledged to have been constructed by the defendant leading the steering team even though the defendant was constructed by the steering team. Nevertheless, this part does not interfere with the function and aesthetic view, so it is difficult to view that this part constitutes a substantial defect and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a defect in the above part.

The part below the conclusion of the first instance judgment No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 7 of the 11 of the judgment is modified as follows.

“11) In conclusion, the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in lieu of the Plaintiff’s defective repair against the Defendant is KRW 17,893,00 ( =253,00 + KRW 183,00 + KRW 13,073,00 + + KRW 4,384,00).

The plaintiff's above claim and the defendant's claim for the construction cost are effective as the termination of the construction contract in this case.