A. As for Defendant Il Construction Co., Ltd, KRW 442,474,036 and KRW 22,933,361 among them shall be applicable. < Amended by Act No. 12233, Jan. 1, 2014>

A. (1) The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization that consists of occupants for the management of 400 households of the 6-dong 400-dong 1, 1999, Seosung-si A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) Defendant Il Construction is a company that constructed and sold the instant apartment, and Defendant Il Construction guaranteed the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment.

B. (1) On September 9, 2008, Defendant Il Construction had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment on the instant apartment on September 9, 2008, and thereafter occupied the buyers of the instant apartment at around that time.

(2) On August 26, 2008, Defendant Il Construction concluded between the Defendant Guarantee Corporation and the guaranty creditor the Gyeonggi-do chemical market, each guarantee period, and the guaranteed amount, from August 26, 2008 to August 25, 2009, 617,931,726 won, from August 26, 2008 to August 25, 2010, and issued the warranty bond as KRW 926,897,590 won, and from August 26, 2008 to August 25, 2011 (hereinafter “the warranty bond”) to the period from August 26, 2008 to August 26, 2008 to August 25, 2013.

(3) In the instant guarantee contract, the term “the guarantee creditor shall be deemed to have changed to the said council of occupants’ representatives in the event of composition of the council of occupants’ representatives under Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.”

C. The defect occurred due to the erroneous construction, the non-construction, the defective construction, the defective construction, or the altered construction of the apartment in this case, and the section for exclusive use and the part of exclusive use of the apartment in this case. Accordingly, the apartment in this case caused an obstacle to the function, safety, or aesthetic view.

After the commencement of occupancy in the apartment of this case, Defendant Il-il Construction did not properly perform it even after being requested to repair the defects of the apartment of this case by the Plaintiff.