1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. Counterclaim in the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court shall additionally determine the cost of repairing defects and the part requesting additional claims in the trial at the trial of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the contents in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

It is difficult to believe that “F” in Chapter 13 of Chapter 5, which is changed to “D,” in the latter part of Chapter 5, by striking the parts described in the subparagraphs 2 through 5, in light of the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial, that “It is difficult to believe that the entry of “A” in the latter part of Chapter 5, “I am in conformity with this,” is “I am in a formal manner because D requires a receipt of KRW 100 million,” and “I am in accordance with this,” and adding “I am in good faith.”

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion and determination as to the repair cost of the defendant's defect, 1) the defendant's cost of repairing the retaining wall and the cost of repairing the steel reinforced in the stairs room, and the defendant's design drawings issued by the plaintiff, the retaining wall of the underground floor is 250 meters thick and the retaining wall of the first floor through the third floor of the ground is 200 meters thick. In the case of the stairs room, there is no slive floor between the floors, so the thickness between the floors should be specified and the third floor of the underground and the slive part should be distributed equally. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have constructed a building differently from the design drawings, because construction was conducted based on the mixed design drawings, in accordance with the site conditions. However, according to the safety examination report ( evidence No. 9, appraiser C's additional appraisal result, fact-finding on appraiser C, fact-finding on appraiser C's design result, the defendant's design wall is 250 meters away from the design body drawings, but the defendant's construction report is 30 meters.