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

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) under the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment, under the 4th sentence of the said judgment, the following is added; (b) the 4th sentence of the said judgment and the 5th sentence of the said 16th sentence are as follows; (c) the 5th sentence and the 16th sentence are as follows; and (d) the 5th sentence and the 16th sentence are as “the 1st instance court’s expert witness”; and (e) the 5th sentence and the 16th sentence are as follows

[No. 4 2]

6. The performance guarantee rate for defects: 10 percent (total contract amount);

7. Period for performing defects: Two years after completion (compliance with Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the details of the single specifications) Article 10 (Guarantee of Defects under Part IV 9).

1. B shall be responsible for the repair and reconstruction of all defects arising under the instant construction contract during the defect period of A, and shall deposit cash equivalent to 10/100 of the contract amount in order to guarantee that A is responsible therefor;

Provided, That it may be substituted by securities, defects, guaranty insurance policy, etc.

2. Claim for service costs;

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (from 5th to 6th 11th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e)

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts that, while entering into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed not to receive any balance of service payments under the instant service contract. However, the instant construction contract is concluded in the first instance court where the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s testimony by the first instance court witness G, namely, the contract for the instant construction contract (Evidence A No. 4 did not state any provision regarding exemption from the payment of the remainder of service payments under the instant service contract, and the G, which was unfavorable to the Defendant inside the Defendant, and involved in the instant construction contract, was the Plaintiff at the first instance court.