1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal lawsuit shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2...

1. In the course of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant as the principal suit against the additional construction cost of KRW 177,97,901, unjust enrichment of KRW 110,276,150, and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 58,038,315. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a counterclaim against the damages of KRW 218,010,383, and the unpaid liquidated damages of KRW 23,215,326, in lieu of the defects arising in the process of the instant construction work.

The first instance court accepted only 58,038,315 won and only 146,059,505 won in lieu of the repair of defects in the counterclaims.

Accordingly, among the part against the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff appealed on the part against each principal lawsuit and the part against which each principal lawsuit and counterclaim have been rejected in total amount of KRW 96,25,483,00,000,000,000 as additional construction cost due to the change of public law due to the base destruction due to the base destruction, and KRW 10,276,150,00,000,000,000 from the part against which the counterclaim has been lost.

On the other hand, on October 21, 2016, immediately after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the purport of offsetting the Defendant’s damage liability in lieu of the Plaintiff’s defect repair claim against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment against the Defendant. The content certification reached

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial facts in this Court, Eul evidence No. 35, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance is the same as that of the defendant's counterclaim, except for addition to the defendant's counterclaim. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, according to the defendant's defense of set-off, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance Nos. 14, 13, and 17, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance Nos. 17, 18, 17, 4, 18, 18, 200, 200.