1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who is equivalent to the following amount ordered to pay the principal lawsuit.

(2) As to the non-construction portion, on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the additional construction cost of KRW 3.2 million under the pretext of the addition of warehouse portion, and the completion of the interior work appears to have been included in the contents of the additional work; ④ Meanwhile, the expenses incurred in completing the non-construction portion as specified in the attached Table 1’s attached Table 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 14 are calculated as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Defendant for KRW 3,286,209, the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s damages incurred due to the non-construction work; (b) KRW 3,286,209; (c) KRW 97,562 won in Ireland; (d) KRW 197,720,62 won in the aggregate of KRW 93,7285,500 in the 96th floor in the 196th floor in the 2nd floor in the 15th floor in the 45th floor.

3) First of all, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the construction content of the Defendant’s assertion contained in the contract of this case is included in the contract of this case solely on the basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1-2 and No. 12 as stated in the attached Table Nos. 1-13 as to the housing of this case as to whether there was any part constructed by mistake as alleged by the Defendant as stated in the attached Table Nos. 2-2 and No. 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Next, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 17, as alleged by the Defendant in attached Table 2, as to whether there was a defect in narrow construction of the second floor toilet to the extent that it is impossible to use the instant house, the Defendant’s complaint to the Plaintiff on September 29, 2016, stating that “the second floor toilet door is well-heat, smelled, smelled.”