The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A. The summary of the case is the case seeking the payment of the warranty bond of KRW 183,60,000 and the delay damages as stipulated in the warranty bond contract, by asserting that the Plaintiff had caused the warranty accident stipulated in the warranty bond contract entered into with the Defendant as to the A apartment (hereinafter referred to as “A apartment”) which was newly constructed and sold in lots with the Defendant by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) with the Defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not liable for defect liability since the defects of this case classified by the appraiser as the five-year or ten-year defect fall under the 1-year or three-year defect unless the A apartment is likely to collapse or collapse, and all of the claims of the plaintiff were accepted, and the defendant appealed against this.

B. The premise factual basis 【Evidence 【A-1-1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 14-1, 2, and 13-2, and 5-1, 2, and 5-13 of A-1-2 of the appraisal result by appraiser F, and the purport of the whole pleadings by appraiser F-1 of the appraisal result by appraiser F. (1) The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization organized for managing three A apartment units and 212 households located in YYB newly built and sold by C, and C is a project proprietor who newly built and sold A apartment. The Defendant is a housing guarantee company with the aim of protecting the policyholders of housing by providing various guarantees, etc. related to the housing construction project, and promoting housing construction by supporting the housing construction project operator

(2) 원고와 피고 사이의 하자보수보증계약 ㈎ 피고는 2006. 2. 7. C과 사이의 하자보수보증위탁계약에 기초하여 포천시장(보증채권자)과 사이에 주채무자를 C로 하여 다음과 같은 하자보수보증계약을 체결하면서 주택법시행령 60조 2항의 규정에 따라 입주자대표회의가 구성되면 보증채권자를 포천시장에서...