1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant's motion to return provisional payments shall be dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal; and

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the statement of the first instance court's reasoning, except for the following cases. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the 16th "Expert B" of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Expert B of the court of first instance."

From 7th to 10th 9th of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

[A] The Defendant’s summary appraiser calculated the cost of rebuilding the whole of the instant apartment pipe pipes (hereinafter “instant scrap pipe pipes”) with the repair cost. The Defendant’s summary appraiser calculated the repair cost of the instant apartment. The household whose water leakage was confirmed in the instant scrap pipe pipes is only a part of the household, and the cost of removal and reconstruction is less than the cost of removal and reconstruction, and its effectiveness is verified by the pitr pipe method (the method of cleaning inside the pipes using compressed air and air and air, and the method of building a prevention to protect the inside of the pipes through the boms), so it is possible to remove the cause of the corrosion of the pipe pipes, so it is inappropriate to repair it by the method of excessive cost, considering that the repair cost for this part is excessive remuneration and thus, it should be recognized within the limit of 163,872,171 won required in the application of the pitr pipe pipes.

B) If there is a defect in the object completed under the judgment contract, the contractor may claim against the contractor for damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect. In the case of an important defect, the contractor shall be included in damages, i.e., the cost of repair in lieu of the excessive cost, even if the cost of repair is required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da31691, 31707, Aug. 18, 2016). In this case, the defect in the heading pipe pipeline of the instant case is directly connected to the safety of the apartment resident of the instant apartment.