1. Cancellation of a part concerning a counterclaim for a judgment of the first instance;

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the six buildings under construction on the ground, such as Gyeonggi-gun C and D, and one unit and construction of a building under construction on the ground of Gyeonggi-gu E (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Defendant, in accordance with the said contract, constructed the said seven units of building (hereinafter “each building of this case”) by October 201, by not later than October 2012, pursuant to the said contract.

B. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the instant construction cost of KRW 21.8 million, KRW 3 million on April 14, 2012, KRW 300,000 on July 13, 2012, KRW 15 million on October 25, 2012, and KRW 40,10 million on the aggregate.

C. When the Defendant carried out the instant construction, defects occurred in each of the instant buildings by failing to carry out or poorly performing a string line with the internal flag, and thereby performing the instant construction. The repair cost for repairing the defects that occurred in each of the instant buildings (i.e., KRW 18,858,961 (i.e., the 16,594,745 within a forest and the 2,264,216).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, each appraisal result of the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay damages in lieu of defect repair of each building of this case to the plaintiff who is the contractor pursuant to Article 667 of the Civil Act as the contractor of the construction of this case.

Furthermore, as to the amount of damages, the defect repair costs of each building of this case are KRW 18,858,961 (i.e., 16,594,745 won in reconstruction expenses and KRW 2,264,216 in reconstruction expenses). However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was unable to construct a galm because the galm did not meet the standard of deliberation in the case of 1 unit of 48 units of G G in Gyeonggi-gu in Gyeonggi-gu in the light of this, it is reasonable to view the defendant's liability ratio as 50% in light of this point.