1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition and the arguments by the parties are as follows: with respect to the plaintiff's additional construction cost of KRW 65,547,70 after the fourth 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant shall have the obligation to pay 14,901,300 to the plaintiff if the amount of KRW 43,549,000, the total amount of KRW 36,900,000, and KRW 80,449,000, in lieu of the defect repair in relation to the construction in this case's defect repair, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff remains at 14,901,30, and the plaintiff shall have the obligation to pay 14,901,300, and any delay damages therefor."

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is as follows: (a) the part of “determination on the Plaintiff’s claim” from the fourth to eight (8) of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the above part, except for the addition of the following. Therefore, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of set-off: (a) In full view of the Plaintiff’s damage claim in lieu of defect repair: 26,840,000 won; (b) evidence No. 10; and (c) evidence No. 4; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the first instance trial appraiser D’s appraisal, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s construction, which obtained approval of the final use of the instant factory, caused a defect that requires remuneration of the sum of KRW 26,840,000, as indicated below.

At that time, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost and the Defendant’s claim for damages substituting the defect repair occurred, and both claims were set off on the same day.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not exercise the right to claim the repair of defects within the exclusion period pursuant to Article 667(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, since the Defendant did not have exercised the right to claim the repair of defects within the exclusion period, both claims were not offset.