The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 96,960,280 (hereinafter “Defendant”) and KRW 280 (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the defect repair expenses of the building of this case, in principle, inasmuch as there were several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, and there were no errors such as the appraisal methods, etc. that are contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable, etc., in principle, the adoption of any of the appraisal results belongs to the discretionary power of the fact-finding court. Among them, the result of the first instance appraiser E’s appraisal concerning the defect repair expenses of the building of this case and the re-appraisal by the lower court appraiser J. 1 adopted the re-appraisal result, thereby recognizing the fact that 32 items defects, such as the number of water leakage, etc. in the building of this case, and then, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the damages.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above fact-finding and determination by the court below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance and the records of the judgment, the first instance court, and the reasoning and the records of the judgment, comprehensively based on the results of the appraisal by appraiser E of the first instance court as to the plaintiff's claim of defect repair expenses, etc., (1) the construction of this case includes seven items, such as tin work thickness, (7,765,432 won in total; (2) the defect repair expenses incurred therefrom are 67,765,432 won in total; and (3) the part that the defendant changed to an agreement with the plaintiff while performing the construction of this case is four items, such as ston on the first floor, and the construction expenses that have not been reduced or required due to the agreement with the plaintiff are 9,496,912 won in total; (2) the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance; and (3) the plaintiff asserted that the building of this case was more defective than the number of defects that had not been determined in the judgment