1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case after the completion of the construction as follows. Thus, the part that was used on February 1, 200 as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is. - The part that was used after the completion of the construction as stated in the second claim - the testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance shall not be recognized that there was a defect equivalent to 11,360,00 won due to the defendant's error in construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, since the defendant is the one for whom the duty to pay 4,00,000 won for the defect repair expenses executed by the defendant among each of the construction works of this case and 20,000 won for the damages incurred by the defendant during the period from 20,000 won to 20,000 won for the damages claim of this case and the damages incurred by the plaintiff from 29.

As to this, the defendant has a damage claim against the defendant in lieu of defect repair.

Although it is alleged to the effect that the period of extinctive prescription expired due to the lapse of the contract period, the extinctive prescription period of five years shall apply in cases where the contract for the repair of the defects of the contractor is a commercial activity. However, the Plaintiff’s claim and claim are made on June 18, 2018, before the lapse of five years from August 1, 2017 to November 18, 2017, when the Defendant completed the first and second construction works.