1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is used by either the following or the judgment is added by the court of first instance, thereby citing the summary of the judgment including the summary of the judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is that it does not seem to have been “the fact” in the 15th part of the judgment, and the following is added “( even according to the fact inquiry result with respect to appraiser D of the first instance trial, the floor flat and floor cracks of the floor are fundamental differences in the defect repair method, and the floor cracks of the floor are not repaired and the floor cracks of the floor are not repaired. Thus, the floor cracks of the warehouse of this case cannot be deemed to have completely identical with the floor cracks of the warehouse of this case in the preceding lawsuit).”

On the 7th day of the first instance judgment, the “the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case” in the 20th day of the first instance judgment shall be “the date of the pronouncement in the first instance judgment”; and the “the next day” in the 21th day shall be “the next day”

From the 9th judgment of the first instance to the 11th judgment, the 5th judgment is as follows.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 10 and 13-1 through 7 of the evidence Nos. 13, the Plaintiff submitted at the appellate court of the prior suit an application for the alteration of the appraised matters as of September 21, 2016, and requested the alteration of “the floor revitalization defect of the instant warehouse” among the existing appraised matters to “the floor crack defect of the instant warehouse.” On September 23, 2016, the Defendant served with the application for the alteration as of September 29, 2016, presented the opinion of the non-approval on September 29, 2016. An appraiser E submitted an appraisal statement to the effect that 39,088,93 won was used for the floor revitalization of the instant warehouse as of October 28, 2016 in accordance with the previous appraisal matters, and the Plaintiff incurred an additional appraisal of the slab and multiple columns of the instant warehouse as of November 23, 2016.