The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the extension and addition by this court shall be dismissed, respectively.

Appeal costs and interest rates.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the remaining part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Witness K's testimony" shall be deemed "part of K's testimony of the first instance witness."

Of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, "242,00,000 won (including value-added tax)" in Part 6 of the Table 7 is as follows: "2,00,000 won for the construction work of this case" (including value-added tax).

Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the term "1,075,00,000 won" in Part 12 of the Table 7 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed as "1,075,000 won (excluding value-added tax) of the steel framed Corporation."

Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court stated that the term "1,351,50,000 won" in the third part of the third part of the first instance judgment is "1,243,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax) of the steel framed Corporation," and stated that the height of the steel framed Corporation of this case is "1,243,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax)."

Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the following contents shall be added to the end of the 8th sentence.

If the collapse accident of this case occurred due to the competition between the plaintiff and the defendant's negligence, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the share of the plaintiff's share out of the amount paid by the plaintiff due to the collapse

Although the Plaintiff did not explicitly make such an assertion, the court of first instance recognized that the Defendant was liable to pay to the Plaintiff half of the costs incurred by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s negligence competes with the Plaintiff at the same rate as that of the Plaintiff, and that the instant collapse incident occurred. The Plaintiff did not dispute the said determination in this court, but did not challenge the said determination.