1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim extended by this court, is as follows.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: "26,539,039 won" as "27,157,464 won" under the last 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the attached Form 1 cited in the above sentence is replaced by attached Table 1 of this judgment; the appraiser recognized the "2. building rupture" of the defendant's appraisal application item as defective and calculated the repair cost as "1,978,620 won", "13. 13 additional installation" as defective and calculated the repair cost as "618,425 won" (3. 141 of appraisal statement, 153 of appraisal statement); the repair cost of the above item 2 is erroneous as "252,613 won under the final appraisal amount table; while the total remuneration cost of the above item 13 is omitted; while the appraisal amount is calculated as "22,197,620 won under the above item 13 of this judgment; and the appraisal cost is calculated as "197,2306 won".

(No. 1) In accordance with the above calculation by an appraiser, the defendant claimed only KRW 26,539,040 as compensation in lieu of defect repair in the first instance court, but this court expanded the claim for the counterclaim, including correcting the omission of the items No. 13 above.

In addition to the result of the expert witness E (including the results of each fact-finding and the results of the supplementary expert examination; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the first instance court appraiser E (hereinafter referred to as the "expert") in the first instance through third (hereinafter referred to as the "expert") in the second instance, except that the expert witness E (including the results of each fact-finding and the results of the supplementary expert examination with respect to the appraiser in the first instance court; hereinafter referred to as the " Results of the expert witness's expert examination") is used as the result of the expert examination (including the results of each fact-finding and the results of the supplementary expert examination with respect to the appraiser in the first instance court; hereinafter referred

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on the Plaintiff’s claim is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following cases where part of the judgment is dismissed.