The plaintiff's conjunctive claim.

2. The reasoning for this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the part concerning the conjunctive claim in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases (excluding the conclusion part), and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

The "attached Form 1" shall be deleted in attached Form 3 of the judgment of the first instance court.

Attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be replaced by attached Form 1 to this judgment.

The 5th 8th 8th e.g., “it is impossible to set off,” and furthermore, the defect on the door of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred within the defect liability period as prescribed by the Housing Act and subordinate statutes, and the 13th e.g., “reasonable” is different. Therefore, the defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

The 7th parallel 13 to 8th parallel 4th parallel are as follows:

As a result of the appraiser C’s appraisal, in full view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the fact inquiry conducted on June 16, 2017 by the court of first instance on the above appraiser, it is reasonable to view that the defect of the fire doors in this case can be repaired by replacing only the door. In the performance test for the test body conducted in the first instance appraisal, a large number of fire doors have occurred in the form and form of the test body and the fire has been rejected, and in light of the site photographs at the time of the performance test as seen above, the flame generated from the door cre was deemed to have been caused by the alteration of the door even door, and in this regard, the appraiser clearly confirmed that the fire creat had not occurred in the door frame of the door gate.

Therefore, the reason for failure of the fire door tester is due to the defect of the door even.