Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

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

The following details shall be added between the fourth decision of the first instance and the second decision of the court:

【The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking monetary compensation is without merit for the following reasons. ① On December 9, 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a business agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant B as the aforementioned facts (hereinafter “instant business agreement”).

(2) According to the principle of the dispute resolution method in the instant case, the Defendants are not monetary compensation, but comprehensive construction on board (hereinafter “comprehensive construction on board”) holding a patent for the DNA construction method under the Defendants’ responsibility.

B through B, the defects arising from the instant building should be repaired, and the Defendants are not liable for the damages of the Plaintiff in cash.

③ The Defendants did not deny or refuse the performance of the repair obligation, and requested the Plaintiff to cooperate in performing the repair obligation.

As to the above argument by the Defendants, the Defendants asserted, based on the instant business agreement, that the Defendants are not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s damage in cash and are relieved of repair work. Under the instant business agreement, the Defendants B (F) perform construction works to minimize the Plaintiff’s damage while performing construction works, and Defendant B (F) must pay compensation for the damage when the damage incurred therefrom occurs.

"The facts determined" are recognized as being the same as the above facts, but there is no dispute between the above basic facts and the parties, or the whole purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1 and 2 are considered as a whole.