1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court is that the part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment, except for changing Defendant B into “B” and “Defendant C” to “Defendant”; and (b) such part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiff

A. In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by witness I of the first instance trial, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant caused the instant defect due to a mistake in the construction of the instant building contrary to the instant design documents.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant defect.

1) Although the instant building had a link to the instant design documents to be constructed as “fincom,” it was constructed as “fincom.” Although the instant design documents had to be constructed as “i x 75 x 6”, it was constructed differently from the instant design documents, such as that the parts were to be constructed as “i x 75 x 6,” the appraisal method should be respected unless the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable. In the instant case for preservation of evidence, the appraiser F submitted an appraisal statement to the same effect as the fact that the instant defect occurred due to the defective design errors in the review of structural calculation of the instant building and the construction errors in the construction failure to be constructed according to the design documents, and the fact inquiry was also made by the court of first instance.

3) The Defendant’s shop shop drawings prepared by J, a subordinate company, through an external company (hereinafter “instant shop drawings”).

4) Based on the above, the Defendant asserted that B reviewed and approved the construction shop drawings of this case. However, i.e., the field leader of the instant construction site as an employee of J is the Defendant’s employee.