1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, with regard to the argument added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court, the following "2. Additional Judgment" is added and the reasons for the decision of the court of the first instance are as stated in the following Paragraph 3. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Although the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is occurring in the 2nd basement parking lot of the apartment of this case, the appraiser B of the first instance court did not consider the above defects as specific items, and did not calculate the cost of repairing defects by presenting fundamental repair methods.

Therefore, the Defendant should additionally pay the Plaintiff the defect repair cost calculated based on the supplement of this part of the defect or the additional appraisal.

B. Determination 1) The appraiser B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Appraiser”)

As a result of the appraisal of the first instance court, the result of the 2nd and the 4th request for the supplementation of the expert witness (hereinafter “each supplementary appraisal”).

(A) According to the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, an appraiser has found the following facts [public 56-2] As to the item “the underground parking lot slives, beams, universal heat and water leakage-water”, the appraiser assessed that “the water was measured from the second floor above the underground parking lot, and this is deemed to flow into water through the front section of the upper floor.” The method of repair is that “the cost of reconstruction is calculated after the snow removal of the floor to the upper floor after the snow removal of the floor to the upper floor to the upper floor.”

B. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff’s appraisal result states, “The water leakage in the ceiling of an underground second-rise parking lot is the water leakage due to structural cracks. The Plaintiff and the Defendant request to verify the water leakage part with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is not appropriate to repair the snow for reconstruction of the upper floor, and it is reasonable to repair it by the method of remuneration for damp-type cracks.”