손해배상(건)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant B Co., Ltd. is 397,923,177 won and its importance.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The phrase "attached Forms 1 and 2" attached to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be respectively dismissed as "attached Forms 1 and 2" attached to this judgment.
The lower part of the sixth lower judgment of the first instance [based on recognition] is as follows:
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
3) As to the first instance trial appraiser J (hereinafter “instant appraiser”)
As a result of the appraisal by the first instance court and the court of this case, the results of each request for the supplementation of the appraiser of this case (in addition to the results of the appraisal by the appraiser of this case, "the results of the appraisal by the appraiser of this case"
) Each of the 12, 14, and 17 pages (based on recognition) of the first instance judgment of "the purport of the entire pleadings" is as follows.
[Reasons for Recognition] Items 12, 13, and 14 of [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2], [Attachment 7-2], [Attachment 2-18], [Attachment 2-20], [Attachment 1-5], [Attachment 1-7], [Attachment 1-7], and [Attachment 1-7].
The main point of the claims of the parties to paragraph (1) is [public 7-2] The main part of the room of stairs, the PEV holes and the hallway floor studs (including the main part of the front 2-18), [the main part of the front 2-18] the studs studs studs studs 2-20 [the studs 2-20] the studs studs studs studs studs studs studs studs studs studs studs, etc.] The studs studs studs studs
A defect found in April 20, 2017 was omitted at the time of the first on-site investigation, not after the first on-site investigation.
Since the majority of the occupants have requested the repair of defects in the other part before December 29, 2014, it is reasonable to confirm that the defect in the other part has occurred within the warranty period.
[Defendant] The Corporation shall be another.