1.The text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

An independent party intervenor, a corporation, and an independent party disaster prevention equipment.

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court for the conclusion of construction contract and the progress of construction work is the same as the "1. Basic Facts"

The Plaintiff’s damage claim due to the defect of this case is KRW 486,157,278 of the building before large-scale repair (hereinafter “previous building”) and KRW 188,563,623 of the cost of removing the remainder due to fire, and KRW 265,790,094 of the total amount of damages of the household fixtures.

Unlike the above KRW 940,501,995, the part which the Defendant was performing construction work under the instant construction contract was also destroyed by fire, and the amount of the extinguished part was reduced to KRW 375,435,060. However, it shall be excluded from both the cost of the construction work and the amount of damages, deeming that it had not been performing the construction work from the beginning.

If a fire occurred prior to the performance of the obligation under the instant construction contract to the Plaintiff, and the part of the construction was extinguished, the Defendant should be deemed to have failed to perform the obligation from the beginning as alleged by the Plaintiff.

However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff had already put the main party destroyed by a fire into the house and used it as a distribution for wedding. Since the parties did not dispute that the construction was not carried out at the time of the instant fire, the Defendant should be deemed to have already fulfilled the construction contract obligation for the part of the instant building regardless of whether the construction was completed or not.

Ultimately, as long as a fire occurs while the Plaintiff had already acquired and used the completion portion of the construction work, the Defendant’s claim for the cost of the construction work, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages from a fire after its acquisition shall be deemed to have been acquired, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise is rejected, and the part of the E-building under the construction work was also extinguished.