1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount determined or ordered to be paid additionally below.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing this part pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant A and the Defendant Substitute Construction

A. 1) According to the above facts as to the claim for damages in lieu of the defect repair, Gyeongnam company and Defendant Dae Dae Construction, a contractor, are liable for damages in lieu of the defect repair caused by a mistake in the construction of the apartment in question to the Plaintiff who is the contractor. 2) As to the claim that the Plaintiff approved the change of the construction of the apartment in question, etc., at least before the inspection of the apartment in this case, the Defendant manager A and the Defendant Dae Dae Construction did not bear the warranty liability on the ground that the Plaintiff approved the change of the construction in question, etc., at least before the inspection of the apartment in this case, at least before the inspection of the apartment in this case. However, the circumstance that the Plaintiff supervised the construction in question and the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not perform the construction in accordance with the design documents or obtained the Plaintiff’s approval in lieu of the design documents. Thus, this part of the above Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Regarding the assertion that the value-added tax should be deducted from the amount of damages, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax included in the defect repair cost should be deducted from the plaintiff's damages.