1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the court shall correct "94,953,169 won" of the first instance court's 7th judgment as "94,953,168 won", and it shall be rejected for the following reasons, contrary to the facts recognized by the court of first instance, E's appraisal results of the first instance appraiser E, which is contrary to the facts recognized by the court of first instance. The defendant's assertion in the trial is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. According to the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding with regard to appraiser E, the party appraiser E did not calculate the construction cost required for the completed part (hereinafter referred to as "construction cost") and the "unregistered construction cost required for the completion of the completed part" (hereinafter referred to as "unregistered construction cost") based on the same criteria in calculating the existing construction cost according to the contract for the construction of this case, and can be recognized that the unregistered construction cost assessed only for the existing construction cost was applied as is by the defendant after the cancellation of the contract for the construction of this case without any separate appraisal as well as the fact that the construction cost for the construction of the construction contract of this case entered into with another construction business operator (hereinafter referred to as "Tru integrated Construction Corporation") was omitted while calculating the existing construction cost, and thus, the appraisal result of the appraiser is not believed.

B. The Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to calculate the construction cost by reflecting the fact that the Plaintiff did not “tampers/crows, mershers, and stowing and stowing construction” necessary for the foundation construction of the existing building, which was destroyed by fire, but it cannot be accepted as a assertion contrary to the fact-finding as seen earlier.

C. The defendant is responsible for the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.