1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the second floor of 83.25 square meters of the building recorded in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the second floor of 83.25 square meters of the building indicated in the attached Table, which is owned by the Defendant, without any particular possessory right, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff as a result of the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

2. Determination on the claim for damages caused by defects in construction works

A. A. Around April 2010, the gist of the assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to repair the house owned by the Plaintiff (the details of specific construction works claimed by the Plaintiff are as shown in the attached Form), and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay the construction cost of KRW 40 million in return, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the total construction cost of KRW 51.5 million upon the Defendant’s request for additional construction cost.

Since a defect occurred after the Defendant completed the construction and the defect repair cost is required to be KRW 14,934,526, the Defendant is obligated to pay the damages to the Plaintiff.

Luxembourg Defendant introduced the construction business to the Plaintiff, and delivered the construction cost received from the Plaintiff to the construction business operator, and there was no contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

B. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or according to the statement No. 1-1 of the evidence, the fact-finding results on the future Saemaul Savings Depository of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repair and repair the house of this case (hereinafter "the construction of this case"), and the management of the construction work of this case was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant when the plaintiff paid the construction work to the defendant. The plaintiff deposited five times between April 21, 2010 and July 9, 2010, a total of KRW 51,500,000 from his account (one million won KRW 50,500,500 won) and the check was paid to the defendant.