1. The judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant regarding the principal lawsuit shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to the revoked part.

1. The court of first instance, within the scope of the judgment of this court, accepted part of the plaintiff's claim on the merits, rendered a judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims on the merits and the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed with respect to the part against the plaintiff among the claims on the merits, while expanding the purport of the claim on the merits before the remand, and the defendant also appealed only with respect to the part against the defendant among the claims on the merits, so the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance is final and conclusive, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the addition of the letter of undertaking No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

3. Determination on a claim for damages in lieu of defect repair

A. In full view of the following: (a) defect in the installation of drainage channels, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 to 3, Gap evidence Nos. 12-9; (b) the appraiser B’s appraisal result of the first instance court’s appraisal of appraiser B; and (c) the appraisal result of the first instance court’s appraisal of appraiser B before remanding, and the overall purport of the arguments as to appraiser C, the court of first instance, as to the newly constructed site of the instant electric power plant, it is reasonable to see the drainage channel as concrete with drainage because water is inevitably high; and (d) even in the civil engineering design drawings regarding the instant construction, the Defendant indicated that the Defendant shall construct a drainage channel as concrete fluor. However, while the Defendant is using concrete fluor, the North section of the site newly built of the instant electric power plant is 80 square meters in the north section of the building site of the instant plant, each of which is built as plastic fluor, and the water leakage occurred in part of the Defendant’s installing plastic fluium.