보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, "Expert I" shall be deemed "Expert I of the first instance court", and in Part 5, "Expert I of this court" in Part 3 shall be deemed "Expert I of the first instance court".
B. Of the fifth part of the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “a defect” is deemed to read “a defect (including a defect in which it is difficult to see it as a 10-year defect (the columns and bearing walls of a large public building)” among the defect in the plaintiff’s assertion.”
(c) in Part 5, part 9 of the first instance judgment, the phrase “as follows,” shall be deemed to read “as a matter of fact recognition.”
Part VI of the decision of the first instance court, "No appraiser I" through No. 6, and No. 12 are as follows.
④ The appraiser I of the first instance trial appraised the rupture that occurred until November 2010 in the course of appraisal under the assumption that the remuneration would be completed first, it is difficult to conclude that the calculation details of the said appraiser's defect are about only the newly occurring defect after completely repairing the defect recognized in the previous suit of this case. ⑤ In addition, although the first instance trial appraiser I calculated the rupture that could occur due to repeated deterioration, such as the rupture rupture, it is difficult to distinguish whether the defect that occurred on the existing repair part of the previous repair part of the previous suit is due to the defective repair or the result of repeated repair, while it is also difficult to distinguish the time of the occurrence of the defect stated in the appraisal report of this case from June 8, 2010, which is the date on which the compulsory adjustment decision of the previous suit of this case becomes final and conclusive, and the period of guarantee of the defendant before and after the expiration of the warranty period of the previous suit of this case can be divided.