1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following three parts shall be followed:

1) As to the Defendant’s assertion on the defect of pipe pipes, the Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s assertion on the defect of pipe pipes of the instant apartment. (2) The Defendant’s assertion on the defect of pipe pipes of the instant apartment.

(2) The above items cannot be deemed as defects in the construction, even if they constitute defects in the construction of pipes, and the water ion concentration (pH) of water in pipes is also normal level. Nevertheless, the fact that corrosion was generated in the pipe pipes is fundamental cause of the shock dulp destruction due to an erosion (material) covered with the surface of pipes and the difference in the concentration of ozone oxygen concentration, and such destruction and cell phenomenon is not caused by periodically replacing water inside the pipe or not washing the pipe. Thus, even if the above items constitute defects in the construction, appraiser cannot be deemed as constituting defects in the construction. In light of the following circumstances, the costs of repairing the pipe pipes are calculated as repair costs for the entire removal of the pipe pipes, and the costs of reconstruction with the steveging pipeline x 10% of the total costs of repairing the pipe x 10% of the total costs of repairing the pipe x 20% of the total costs of repairing the pipe x 10% of the total costs of repairing the pipe x 10% of the apartment x 210% of the present.25 meters of the apartment.