1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "E" in Part 3, 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "D", "C" in Part 7, 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "C" in Part 6, and "C" in part 6, 15, 7, and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (C) The part which offset the cost of defect repair is offset as it is, due to the defect of any one supplied by the plaintiff, and since the defendant deducteds KRW 29,00,000 as the cost of defect repair in the related judgment of this case due to the defect of any one delivered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant 29,000,000 won due to the non-performance of obligation.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4-4, the judgment of the court below in this case resulted in the appraisal of KRW 5,000,000 as repair cost for the scambrawls, and the replacement cost for the scambling loan, and KRW 6,000,000 as the supplementary insertion cost for the inside scambox, and KRW 5,000 as the supplementary insertion cost for the inside scambox, and KRW 6,00,000 as the reinforcement cost for each part, and KRW 4,00,000 as the additional repair cost for each part, and the other 3,00,000,000 as the repair cost for scambling and trial operation cost, and it can be recognized that the above scambling amount was deducted from the construction cost claim of the defendant against D.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that defects, as alleged by the Defendant, cannot be deemed as a result of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation, or that the Defendant decided to resolve them, in view of the overall purport of each of the above evidence.