2. The plaintiff, .

A. The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff is an autonomous management body composed of occupants in order to manage the A apartment of Jinju-si (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) five and thirty-seven households, and Defendant Ho Ho Construction is the executor of the new apartment of this case, Defendant Ho Ho Construction is the company that newly constructs the apartment of this case, the company that newly built the apartment of this case, and the Defendant Kuho Construction guaranteed the obligation to repair the defects of Defendant Kugu Construction, the contractor of the apartment of this case.

B. On August 6, 2007, Defendant Daewoo Construction concluded each of the defect liability insurance contracts as shown in the table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant defect liability insurance contracts in case where each of the defect liability insurance contracts is referred to as “each of the defect liability insurance contracts”) with the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and issued each of the defect liability insurance policies from the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance. Each of the defect liability insurance policies provides that the status of the insured shall be automatically succeeded to the status of the council of occupants’ representatives if the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment as the Plaintiff is constituted.

The guaranteed amount of the guaranteed amount of the guaranteed insurance contract of this case 1 from August 31, 2007 to August 30, 2008 (1 year) 349,882,080 2 from August 31, 2007 to August 30, 2008 (2 years) to August 30, 2009 (2 years) 349,882,0803 from August 31, 2007 to August 31, 2009 to August 30, 208 (3 years): 524,823,1204 from August 31, 207 to August 30, 2010 (3 years): the guaranteed insurance contract of this case 4, August 30, 2007 to August 31, 2007 (5 years), 26, 15, 2015 to August 36, 2017

C. The apartment of this case, upon occurrence of the defect, was inspected on August 29, 2007, but the defect occurred in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the apartment of this case due to the non-construction, alteration construction, and defective construction of the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the apartment of this case was affected by the function, safety, or aesthetic view.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and this.