1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the construction cost is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. 1) The amount of money to be deducted from the construction cost already paid: 169,00,000 won (based on recognition) defect or non-construction cost: 2) The defendant asserts that, in addition to the above 51,30,000,000 won for defective or non-construction cost of 62,089,00 won for non-construction cost, or the construction cost of non-construction cost of 62,089,000 won for non-construction cost, the remainder of 51,30,000 won for re-construction of 10,789,000 won for re-construction of Y and 10,000 won for re-construction of Y and 10,000 won for re-construction of Y and 106,80,000 won for non-construction cost, the defendant should additionally deduct the defect repair cost of 430,000 won between the floor and the wall board of the building of this case recognized by the plaintiff.

The result of the appraiser C’s supplemental appraisal request alone is insufficient to recognize that there is any defect or non-construction part as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, with respect to the part of the appraisal that the defendant alleged that there was an additional defect in the trial, the period for the warranty against defects of the contractor under the Civil Act is the exercise period of judicial or extra-judicial rights as the exclusion period and is not the release period for the judicial claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da24891, Jan. 27, 2004). However, the fact that the Defendant obtained approval for the use of a building newly constructed by the head of the relevant Si/Gun on September 17, 2015 from the head of the relevant Gu/Si/Gun is as seen earlier, and based on the above evidence.