1. The Defendant’s KRW 731,004,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 19, 2016 to September 19, 2017.

. We examine only the above recognition and each argument of the other parties.

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the 130,818,067 won calculated by the appraiser as the defect repair cost of the said item is merely the amount calculated by applying the unit price based on the thickness of pine trees at the Defendant’s request, and that the defect repair cost of the said item is KRW 198,489,140, based on the initial appraisal document’s KRW 192.1% of the unit price for the entire household units against the entire apartment of this case, based on the unit price of KRW 198,489,140.

In light of the result of the appraiser B’s entrustment to the appraiser B of this court, the fact-finding inquiry conducted on May 30, 2016, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above appraiser calculated the cost of defect repair related to high planting under item (g) above, in the initial appraisal, five million won per unit price of pine trees (H9.0*R35) based on height shall be applied in the case of pine trees (i.e., pine h9.0*R30), and 3.88 billion won per unit price in the case of nesf trees (H1.5*W2.0). After the fact-finding conducted an inquiry to the above appraiser as of April 19, 2016, the above appraiser applied 3.8 million won per unit price based on price data in the year 2015, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above appraiser applied 200.7 billion won per unit price per class (H15.205.30).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is alleged to the same purport as the "main sheet" with respect to each of the items stated below, but all of the judgment grounds are without merit for the same reason as the "junish sheet".

The article No. 1 [Public 1-01-5] Each Dong outer wall is fracker in the inter-story of the floor, according to the stage theory of concrete.