[2] The person who bears the burden of proof as to whether the defect that the business entity bears the duty of defect repair under the Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act occurs within the warranty period (=the business entity)

[3] Whether the warranty period under Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act is the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to claim repair of defects (negative), and the initial date of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim repair of defects occurring within the warranty period (=the date when the warranty period

[4] The case holding that in consideration of the fact that there may be natural aging phenomenon of apartment houses, the amount of damages in lieu of the defect repair by the business proprietor under Article 46 of the Housing Act shall be 70% of the cost of defect repair

[2] In relation to the period of occurrence of defects for which a business entity is obligated to repair defects under the Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, considering that the existence of defects must be proven by the council of occupants' representatives, etc. claiming the repair of defects, but it is difficult for the business entity to request the council of occupants' representatives, etc. to prove the period of occurrence of defects, and that the business entity accumulated experience and knowledge in the field as a specialized construction company, it is reasonable to prove that the fact that the defects did not occur within the warranty period

[3] Article 59(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that "where a defect occurs in a multi-family housing within the defect liability period under paragraph (1)" means that the council of occupants' representatives, etc. may demand the project undertaker to repair the defect, and does not provide that the council of occupants' representatives shall demand the repair of the defect within the period or shall be liable to compensate for the defect during the period. Therefore, the above defect liability period cannot be interpreted as the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to claim the repair of defect, and the above warranty period means only the "period of the defect" in the language and text, and it does not mean the "period of the obligation to repair the defect". Thus, as to the right to claim the repair of the defect

[4] The case holding that the project undertaker recognized the amount of damages to be compensated as a substitute for defect repair pursuant to Article 49 of the Housing Act as 70% of the cost of defect repair in consideration of the following: (a) the period between 10 and 10 years has elapsed since the occupancy was completed after the inspection and the actual defect appraisal was implemented; (b) the project undertaker had already implemented the defect repair expenses several times; and (c) the cost of defect repair should be calculated on the basis of the front Do road, not the front Do road, but even if there was no defect after the lapse of 11 years after the inspection of the usage; and (d) there was a need to additionally color even if the apartment was not caused after the lapse of 11 years

(a) 501,806,687 won and 6% per annum from January 18, 2005 to November 30, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. The amount of 470,765,31 won and 6% per annum from January 13, 2005 to November 30, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment for Defendant Yang Young-young Co., Ltd.;

C. Of the amount of KRW 972,572,018 as well as KRW 328,164,648 as well as KRW 101,00,00 from January 14, 2005 to the date of full payment, KRW 20% per annum for KRW 227,164,648 as well as KRW 6% per annum from January 14, 2005 to April 206; and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Samchia and Yangyang Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, Samchia, and Yangyang Co., Ltd. are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant, as the above.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. ① Under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003) and the former Decree on Management of Apartment Houses ( repealed by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act”), the Plaintiff is a self-management organization organized by occupants for the management of 12-1,080 households, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu 312-1, 12-1, and 12-1,080 households (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20010, Jun. 3, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jun. 29, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 3, 2005>

B. From among the facilities of the apartment in this case, the defendant Samdo Community built the Section 2, such as an apartment building of 107 to 112, an underground parking lot of 203, 204, a central supply room of 204, and an apartment building of 101 to 106, an underground parking lot of 201 to 106, an underground parking lot of 202 to 205, and a kindergarten and a commercial building of 1 section, respectively, and occupied the residents after a pre-use inspection on April 25, 1995. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the apartment in this case had not been constructed or failed differently from the design drawing at the time of the approval of the project, and that there were no defects as stated in the attached Table 1, 2, and 112, and there were no defects as to the apartment in this case, and the plaintiff's assertion that the warranty liability and the defect warranty liability of 10 years of 10 years of the building or building of this case is not accepted.

C. On April 13, 1995, in order to guarantee the obligation to repair the defects of the apartment of this case, the defendant Samdo Community and Soyang-young entered into a guarantee agreement (hereinafter "the guarantee agreement of this case") with the guarantee creditor, the head of Seocho-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon, the guarantee creditor, the head of Seo-gu, the head of Seo-gu, the security deposit amount, the64, the648 won, the guarantee period from April 25, 1995 to April 24, 1905, and the head of Soyang-gu, the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon, the head of Seo-gu, the head of Seo-gu changed the guarantee agreement of this case to the plaintiff by the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon, the guarantee creditor.

D. Meanwhile, the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7520, hereinafter “former Housing Act”) and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 7502, hereinafter “former Aggregate Buildings Act”) were amended on May 26, 2005, during which the lawsuit in this case was pending (hereinafter “former Aggregate Buildings Act”) and Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Housing Act applied the amended Housing Act to the liability for warranty and repair of defects of collective housing even in the lawsuit in this case pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Housing Act.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, part of Gap evidence Nos. 4, this court's appraiser movement contribution, part of the entrustment of appraisal of the transmitted crime, the appraiser movement contribution of this court, the fact inquiry conducted on June 22, 2006, and part of the fact inquiry conducted on May 8, 2006, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Samdore Museum and Yang Young-young

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The project undertaker of the apartment of this case is responsible for compensating for damages incurred or in lieu of the defects arising in relation to the apartment of this case. As to the apartment of this case, each of the defects, such as the entries in the attached Tables 1, 2, and 1,053, 546, and 322, which occurred within the warranty period, are remaining. As for the Section 2 constructed by the defendant Samdo Community as the repair cost, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,006,542,589, respectively, in the case of the Section 1 constructed by the defendant Samdo Community, and the amount equivalent to KRW 1,006,542,589, in the case of the Section 1 constructed by the defendant Samyang project. Thus, the plaintiff is liable for compensating for damages incurred by the plaintiff, and the compensation for damages incurred by the defendant Samyang to pay the 1,053,546,322, and the compensation for damages incurred by the delay.

B. Relevant statutes and interpretation

(1) Relevant statutes

(A) the revised Housing Act;

Article 46 (Liability for Warranty and Repair of Defects)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 of the Multi-Family Building Act, which provides that the provisions of Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability for the sale of a building in lots, where any defects prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as rupture, subsidence, damage, etc. due to a mistake in construction, occur within the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree, from the date of inspection of use of a multi-family housing or the date of approval for use of a multi-family housing under the provisions of Article 18 of the Building Act, within the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree,

(2) The project undertaker under paragraph (1) shall deposit the security deposit for repairing defects under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(3) When any serious defects have occurred in the portions of proof-proof structures of collective housing within the period of warranty liability under paragraph (1), the project undertaker shall be liable to compensate for the damages incurred due to the occurrence of defects.

(ii) in-laws;

Article 1 (Enforcement Date): This Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Article 3 (Transitional Measures concerning Warranty Liability and Repairs of Defects): The provisions of Article 46 concerning the liability for warranty and the repair of defects of the collective housing, for which the inspection of usage under Article 29 of the former Housing Act or the approval for use under Article 18 of the Building Act has been granted prior to the enforcement of this Act.

(B) Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19053, Sept. 16, 2005)

Article 59 (Defect Repairs by Project Undertaker)

(1) The scope of defects for which a project proprietor (referring to a project proprietor under the main sentence of Article 46 (2) of the amended Housing Act) is responsible for repair under Article 46 (1) of the same Act, the defect liability period for each load-proof structure and each facility work, etc. shall be as specified in attached Tables 6 and 7.

(2) "Persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as occupants of multi-family housing" in Article 46 (1) of the amended Housing Act means occupants, council of occupants' representatives, management body, or management body organized under the amended Aggregate Buildings Act.

[Attachment 6]

The scope of defects subject to defect repair and the defect warranty liability period by facility construction;

1. The scope of defects: The defects that may cause harm to the functions, pipes or safety of a building or an establishment due to rupture, conditions, turgical forests, turging, subsidence, damage, collapse, leakage, leakage, operational failure or function failure, installation, contact or rupture failure, death and injury, etc. due to errors in construction;

2. Warranty liability: One to three years;

[Attachment 7]

Scope of defects subject to defect repair by load-bearing structure and defect liability period;

1. Scope of defects;

(a) Where the relevant apartment house is collapsed due to any defect in the portions of proof-proof structures;

(b) Where it has been judged that the relevant collective housing might collapse as a result of the safety diagnosis under Article 62 (3); and

2. Period of defect repair liability by load-proof structure;

(a) Plastics or bearing walls (excluding plastic walls that do not bear weight): Ten years;

(b) Bolls, floors, and roof: Five years;

(C) Revised Aggregate Building Act

Article 6 of the Addenda (Relation to the Housing Act): The special provisions of the Housing Act concerning methods and standards for managing collective housing shall be effective unless they violate this Act and thus infringe on the basic rights of sectional owners: Provided, That the liability for warranty of collective housing and repair of defects shall be governed by the provisions of Article 46 of the Housing Act.

(2) Interpretation of the scope, etc. of defects subject to defect repairs by the load-bearing structure

As seen above, the amended Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the apartment house is liable to repair the apartment house within the scope of 10 years in a case where the apartment house is likely to collapse or collapse due to the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures, or where the apartment house is determined to collapse or to have the same defect as the result of safety diagnosis. However, the purport of such provision is that the apartment house is particularly liable for aggravated liability in light of its danger and importance with respect to the serious defect such as the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures, and that it does not purport to restrict the liability for warranty only for the serious defect such as the case where the apartment house is destroyed or collapsed. If the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures recognized as defect repair is considered to be limited to a case where the apartment house is likely to collapse or collapse, it is merely a result of leaving the apartment house as the most important part in the safety of the apartment house without recognizing the repair obligation until it is collapse or to solve the defect in the portions of the previous Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and the purport of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that the defect warranty liability of the apartment structure and the apartment.

(c) Markets:

(1) The defect warranty liability period stipulated in Article 59(1) Item (Attachment 7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, which refers to the "period of the defect occurrence" and does not mean the duration of the defect warranty liability. Thus, even after the expiration of the warranty period, the defect warranty liability still exists until the expiration of the warranty period. However, in light of the fact that the existence of the defect must be proved by the Plaintiff, but it is difficult to require the Plaintiff, the tenant representative, to prove the occurrence period of the defect, and that it is difficult to require the Plaintiff to prove the occurrence period of the defect, and that the fact that the defect did not occur within the warranty period, as the Defendant Samdo Community and the construction company, which is the project proprietor, accumulated experience and knowledge in the relevant field, should be considered.

In light of the above facts, the defect in the column of [Attachment 1 and 2], which occurred with respect to the apartment of this case, shall be subject to the defect warranty liability period of 10 years or 5 years, such as the defect in the load proof structure, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above defects did not occur within the defect warranty period. Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by considering the facts and the whole purport of the arguments as a whole, are as follows: ① the plaintiff requested several times from April 2000 before five years elapse from the inspection date of the apartment of this case to April 200 before the inspection date of the use of the apartment of this case, to repair the rupture of the underground parking lot slabb, which falls under the defect subject to the defect warranty liability period of 5 years, ② the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case before 10 years elapse from the inspection date of the use of the apartment of this case, and ② the plaintiff's defect warranty liability of the attached Table 10 years to the apartment of this case, each of the defect warranty defects can be considered.

Furthermore, the above defendants' right to manage the apartment houses and their accessory facilities, other than the defect in the 1st 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 66th 66th 66th 66th 3th 666th 666th 966th 666th 3th 966th 966th 666th 966th 966th 966th 966th 166th 3th 966th 66th 96th 96th 66th 166th 96th 166th 96th 166th 166th 166th 96th 7th 206th 96th 166th 206th 166th 166th 3th 206th 3th 16666th 3th 3th 266666th 3th 3th 2666666th 3th 3th 3th 3

(2) Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Samdo community and Mayang-young

(A) First, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the warranty period under the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act is the exclusion period, and that the defect warranty period of five-year defect warranty period, among the defect in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of five years from the date of usage inspection of the instant apartment, and the defect warranty period of five-year defect warranty period has already expired due to the excess of the exclusion period, and that the

However, Article 59 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act provides that "in the case of a defect in a multi-family housing within the defect warranty period under paragraph (1), the council of occupants' representatives, etc. may demand the business entity to repair the defect, and does not provide that the council of occupants' representatives, etc. shall demand the repair of the defect within that period, or that the warranty liability exists during that period, so the above defect warranty liability period cannot be interpreted as the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to demand the repair of defect (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25632, Jun. 16, 2006). Since the above warranty period means only the occurrence period of the defect, and it does not mean the duration of the defect warranty obligation, it shall be interpreted that the warranty period for the defect that occurred within the above defect warranty period shall expire only after the expiration of each defect warranty period

Meanwhile, the above Defendants’ construction and sale of apartment houses for the purpose of the sale and lease business of new apartment houses constitutes commercial activities as provided by Article 46(1) of the Commercial Act. The five-year extinctive prescription period under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to both parties as well as claims arising from both parties’ commercial activities as well as claims arising from an act that constitutes only one of the parties’ commercial activities. It includes not only claims arising from a direct commercial activity but also claims arising from a non-performance of obligations arising from a commercial activity (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da9260, Aug. 26, 1997). Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to repair defects and the right to claim damages in lieu thereof against the above Defendants shall be five-year extinctive prescription period as commercial claims. Since the Plaintiff’s right to claim repairs of defects in the defect warranty period of five-year against the above Defendants and the right to claim damages in lieu thereof, which is obviously 205 years from April 25, 1995 to 204.

(B) The above Defendants asserts that the warranty liability period of 1 to 3 years is applied to defects, such as rupture, which occurred in the balcony, since the above Defendants did not correspond to the resistant structure of the apartment of this case, since the balcony salke and the salves of the instant apartment

As a result of the fact-finding conducted on May 8, 2006, part of the fact-finding conducted by the appraiser movement constitution of this court and the air transport crime, balcony rail consists of slots and a railer. Among them, slots constitute a load-resistant structure which is an load-resistant structure, and the scroke itself does not fall under the scrosion structure. On the other hand, the scrokes are constructed together with the scrobs, and their distinction is ambiguous, and the scrokes are developing or are likely to develop or expand from the scrobs. Thus, according to the above facts-finding, it is reasonable to view that the defects such as the scrofs in the scrokes directly affect the major part of the structural part of the building. Thus, this part of the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

(C) Following, the above Defendants asserted that the defects related to the removal of the pumps of the elevator moving space (fore, supplementary hardwares to prevent the destruction of the elevator moving space) and the defects related to the removal of materials and the removal of the elevator moving space and the removal of the steel removal from office are defects subject to the defect liability period of 3 years. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is filed at the expiration of 5 years from the expiration date of the above defect liability period, and the claim for damages related to the defect repair of each of the above defects and the right to claim damages in lieu thereof has already already been extinguished upon the lawsuit of this case on the premise that the defect liability period is the expiration date of the above defect liability period (a). However, the above defendants' assertion that the aforementioned defect liability period is not acceptable on the ground that the above defendants' explicit assertion cannot be accepted on the grounds as seen in (a) above, but it is included in the plaintiff's claim that the defect liability period has already expired, as stated earlier.)

In full view of the results of the fact inquiry conducted on June 22, 2006 about the moving constitution of this court, the fact that the number of pumps itself does not fall under the load-resistant structure, but if the number of pumps is not removed, it can be reduced due to cracks in concrete inside the moving space of elevators combined with it, etc. (ii) the defects related to the separation of materials from the elevator's moving space and the removal of steel bars are directly generated from concrete inside the elevator's moving space, and the fact that the defects related to the elevator's moving structure directly occur in concrete parts of the elevator's moving space, which are the defect of the elevator's inner structure itself (this part of the defendants' above cannot be seen as having a significant effect on the installation of the elevator's moving structure and installation of concrete parts and installation of the elevator's own removal of the elevator's inner equipment. However, according to the main reasons, it is reasonable to recognize that the above defects affect the installation of the elevator's main installation and installation of the elevator's removal of the elevator's inner equipment.

(D) Next, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the fee should be calculated on the basis of the partial design in determining the amount of compensation for damages against the Plaintiff, since the mashion of the fee for the crack of the outer wall is sufficient to be a part that is not the front design.

In light of the empirical rule, it is necessary to completely hold the defendants' assertion on this part, since it is inevitable to prevent a spawned repair of the apartment of this case, in order to prevent a spawnance of aesthetic view after repairing the apartment of this case, in light of the fact that if only the spawn part concerning the spawn part exists, the color and pattern of the remaining parts would vary, etc., and if only the spawn part concerning the spawn part would remain in appearance due to the difference in the color and pattern of the remaining parts. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the transaction price of the apartment of this case would decline in the apartment of this case.

(E) Lastly, the Defendants asserts to the effect that it is unfair to increase the number of parts required by the appraiser's movement constitution and the invoice in calculating the full design cost by 8.2% according to the standard construction work unit cost, even if the above Defendants were to implement the full design in the equal repair work, it should be increased by 40%.

In full view of the purport of the argument in June 22, 2006 as to the movement of appraiser of this court, the fact inquiry by the appraiser of this court as of June 22, 2006, the standard unit of construction work prescribed a premium rate by height as argued by the above defendants. However, in the case of the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case is premised on the use of the association, while it is based on the number of figures required for the use of the association, since the residents already live in the non-system, the apartment of this case is already living. Thus, the fact of calculating the fee rate by 40% in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the height of the apartment of this case, etc. on the premise that the appraiser movement Hun-Ba and Songdong-dong can be acknowledged. Accordingly, according to the above fact-finding facts, the replacement of appraiser was calculated according to the reasonable premium rate by considering the whole circumstances such as the repair work method suitable for the front map and the present situation of the apartment of this case. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

(3) Reduction of damages

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the overall purport of the arguments, are comprehensively based on the evidence mentioned above, i.e., ① the apartment of this case after the use inspection was completed and the ten-year period has passed from the date on which the appraisal of the actual defects was implemented, ② the apartment of this case can be naturally occurring, ② the apartment of this case had already been implemented several times at the Plaintiff’s request, and ③ the portion of the apartment of this case should be calculated based on the front Do governor, which is not the road, as seen earlier. However, even if the defects of this case were not occurred in 11 years after the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case, there was a need to additionally color even if the apartment of this case had not occurred, and in the case of the front Do governor, there was a need to pay more repair costs than the partial governor, and the amount of damages to be paid by the above Defendants to the Plaintiff should be determined with the principle of fairness or the principle of good faith 1389,389,798,798.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, as the plaintiff seeks, among the damages of KRW 972,572,018 in lieu of the defect repair of this case, 501,806,687 won (716,86,696 won x 70%) of the cost of repairing defects of Section 2 constructed by the above defendant and as the plaintiff seeks, 6% of the following day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the above defendant from January 18, 2005 to November 30, 2006, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the above defendant's obligation of this case from January 30, 206 to November 30, 2006; 20% of the annual damages of this case from the next day to the day of full payment; 30% of the damages of this case to the defect repair of this case; 30% of the cost of delivery of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff 20% of the above damages of this case; 2030% of the above damages of this case

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's housing guarantee

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Under the guarantee contract of this case, the guarantee against the defendant is a compensation in lieu of the correction of defects that occurred in relation to the apartment of this case, and it is obligated to pay the guarantee limit of 328,164,648,91 won (1,053,546,322 won + 1,006,542,589 won, plus 1,006,542,589 won for the damages incurred in relation to the apartment of this case and damages incurred in relation to the apartment of this case, which is 2,060,08,911 won (1,053,546,32 won + 1,06,542,589 won).

(b) Markets:

(1) Comprehensively taking into account the contents of the instant guarantee agreement and the amended Housing Act and the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree thereof, Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff within the guarantee limit, as a guarantor under the instant guarantee agreement, for each warranty period prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act with respect to the instant apartment within the warranty period, in lieu of the repair of defects arising within the guarantee period of the instant guarantee agreement, in lieu of the repair of defects arising within the warranty period of the instant guarantee agreement.

However, the warranty period of the contract of this case as of April 24, 2005, when 10 years elapsed from the date of the usage inspection of the apartment of this case, is the same as seen above. Accordingly, the scope of the warranty against the defendant's house guarantee against the plaintiff is a defect that occurred within 5 years or 10 years under the revised Housing Act and its Enforcement Decree, and it constitutes all the defects that the defendant's house guarantee against the plaintiff bears the liability to compensate for damages in lieu of the defect repair as seen in the above 2. As seen in the above 2., the warranty against the defendant's house guarantee against the plaintiff is equivalent to the total amount of KRW 972,572,018, and the defect repair cost that the defendant's house guarantee against the defendant's house should be paid to the plaintiff is equivalent to the guaranteed amount of the insurance contract of this case 328,164,648 won.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee: The same shall apply to the assertion and determination as to the Defendant’s C. (2) of the aforementioned 2.c. (2) as to the assertion and determination as to C. C. C. and C.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, as to the defendant's house guarantee amount of KRW 328,164,648 among the 972,572,018,018, and KRW 101,00,000 among the above 172,572,00,000, the defendant's house guarantee amount of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 14, 2005 to the day of full payment (327,164,648 - 101,648 - 100,000) as requested by the plaintiff, as to the above defendant's house guarantee amount of KRW 328,164,64,648 among the above 1972,572,018,018, and the above 101,000,000,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the above defendant's.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendant Samdo Community and Soyang-young shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant's house guarantee against the defendant shall be accepted as reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] : Table Nos. 1 and 2 omitted (as to Section 1, Section 2)

5. Judgment of the court below (Presiding Justice)