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

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

1. The plaintiff cited in the judgment of the court of first instance brought an appeal only against the plaintiff's damages claim of KRW 6,959,300, KRW 3740,00, KRW 52,800, KRW 52,499,300, and KRW 43,866, which deducts KRW 8,602,434, which the plaintiff received as warranty insurance money from the total sum of KRW 51,80,000, KRW 52,49,300, and KRW 41,80,000, KRW 41,80,00, KRW 434, which was the part against the plaintiff's loss. The mark of the composite board in the judgment of the court of first instance deducted the above insurance money of KRW 8,602,434, and KRW 33,197,566, which was the part against the plaintiff.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is the witness F of the trial court, the witness G of the trial court's testimony, and the result of the request for appraisal by the appraiser G of the trial court, the fact-finding and decision of the

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Considering that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation, the first instance court determined that the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at 15% per annum from the day following the date of the first instance judgment, not from the day following the date on which the counterclaim was served on the Plaintiff.

However, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation," refers to the case where the obligor's assertion in a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed to have considerable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da9285, Jan. 25, 191). As seen above, as seen above, the first instance court fully recognizes the Defendant's counterclaim claim, thereby making the damages for delay as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.