하자보수보증금
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff, Defendant Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and New Light Construction Co., Ltd. are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance court's argument that the Plaintiff is not responsible for the defect prior to the conversion of land for sale in lots is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the part following the last part of the first instance judgment No. 15 to 16 [Attachment 3], and that the Plaintiff is not responsible for the defect prior to the conversion of land for sale in lots in lots in the second through 19] is as follows; and (b) the part of the first instance court's reasoning is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is being used as common facilities of residents not for common facilities of residents in the first instance. Since the above part of the Plaintiff's assertion is installed, there are a lot of columns, which are less than the amount of the Plaintiff's assertion, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the amount of rent as defect repair cost. According to Article 29 of the Regulations on the Construction Standards, etc. of Housing Construction Standards (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18929, Jun. 30, 29, 30, 29).
Inasmuch as heating efficiency has been significantly deteriorated as heating pipes installed to connect the heating pipes installed in the 37-generation auxiliary kitchens and the heating pipes installed in the 2nd unit through the auxiliary kitchens, this part constitutes a defect.
According to the design drawings of apartment buildings in this case, the appraiser of the first instance court is the main room to assist the balcony of each household.