Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As follows, the 4th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written down in the following parts:

In light of the above facts, the claim of this case is the price claim that C supplied or installed a water tank to the Defendant, and there was a defect in the installation of a water tank at H site in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the ignified City I from among water tanks installed above, the Defendant requested C to repair the defect, but the Defendant did not repair the water tank, and around September 2018, J (mutual: K) requested C to repair the tank defect at its expense, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant paid the water tank defect at its expense 1.65,00 won (including KRW 1.50,00,000, KRW 1.50,000, and KRW 200,000,000) to J. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant provided the above 1.65,000 won (the total amount of the damage claim of KRW 1.65,000,000,000,000,000) in lieu of the evidence 1.660.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted. On the other hand, the defendant's damage claim against C and C's defendant.