The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the reversal of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including main numbers); and (c) the result of the appraisal commissioned to C by the court of first instance to the court of first instance; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by this court; and (d) thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since D was ordered separately from the Defendant for the astronomical Work and E, it cannot offset the Plaintiff’s claim for the remainder of the construction works for the astronomical Work that was acquired by the Plaintiff due to the defect repair claim for the E Work. However, in the event that the obligor is notified of the transfer of claims, the obligor may oppose the assignee for the reasons that occurred to the transferor up to the time (Article 451(2)), even if there were not yet set-off grounds, if the obligor is in a set-off position subsequent to the set-off (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da22962, Jun. 27, 2019, etc.), the obligor may set-off against the assignee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da22962, Jun. 27, 2019).

B. The Plaintiff also asserts to the effect that the appraiser’s appraisal result cannot be trusted, but the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless the appraiser’s appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da103199, Jan. 24, 2013). The fact that D ordered E construction is not in dispute is that the appraiser’s determination is contrary to the empirical rule or considerably unfair. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.