1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the Defendant’s principal claim and the first instance court’s joint Defendant C, claiming the delivery of buildings and the return of unjust enrichment, and the Defendant’s counterclaim claiming the return of lease deposit and the compensation for damages.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) did not object to both the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, and the Defendant appealed only to the part of the claim for damages among the counterclaim claims. As such, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the part of the claim for damages among the Defendant’s counterclaim claims.

2. As to this part of the basic facts, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. As to the defendant's counterclaim

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion asserts that the construction cost of KRW 32,00,000 was paid due to the leakage of the building of this case, and that the plaintiff was paid KRW 6,00,000 among them, and that the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 20,000,000 out of the remainder of KRW 26,00.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5, the written estimate of KRW 32,00,00 as of August 25, 2014 is prepared, and the written column of the said written estimate is as follows; the written column of the said written estimate is as follows: “D Construction and Repair of Defects”; and the written column of the remarks column is as follows: “a tent, a wall, and a floor (total)”.

However, in this case where the Plaintiff contests the probative value, etc. of the said quotation, there is no evidence supporting that “the entire amount of the said quotation is the defect repair cost incurred by the leakage of the building in this case” and “the Defendant has performed the actual construction in accordance with the said quotation and paid the said construction cost,” and the evidence alone, such as the statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, submitted by the Defendant, is insufficient to support that “the Defendant received 6,00,000 won from the Plaintiff due to the leakage of the building in this case.”