1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

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

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts added thereto, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination (Determination on the principal safety defense against a counterclaim) is unlawful, since the instant counterclaim did not meet the requirements for filing a lawsuit since it was not related to the principal lawsuit.

According to Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a counterclaim claim must be related to a claim or defense method of the principal lawsuit. If the principal lawsuit and the subject matter or cause of the counterclaim are actually common, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim should be deemed to be related.

(See Supreme Court Decision 67Da116, 117, 118 delivered on March 28, 1967, etc.). In other words, the fact that a claim for a counterclaim is related to a claim for the principal lawsuit or to a defense method of the principal lawsuit means that both a claim for the principal lawsuit and a counterclaim are legally or factual common in the subject matter of a lawsuit or in the subject matter or cause thereof, or that the counterclaim claim is legally or factual common in the subject matter or cause thereof.

The main claim of this case is seeking the amount unpaid from the construction of this case, and the counterclaim of this case is seeking the cost of repairing defects in the building which is the object of the construction of this case, and it is common to the object or cause of the defect. Thus, it is related to each other.

Therefore, the plaintiff's defense cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.