2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 27, 2006, the Plaintiff Company is a company operating housing construction and sales business, and purchased each of the above lands from the Defendants, who are co-owners of seven lots of land, such as Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 2006.

B. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff Company commenced construction work to newly construct a multi-family housing on the land of ten parcels, including the instant land and three parcels owned by the Daegu Building and Co., Ltd., and during that process, it became clear that waste such as waste concrete was buried in the said multi-family housing site.

C. The Plaintiff Company filed a request for the disposal of the above landfill waste with priority with the KCAS Construction Co., Ltd., and the KCAS Construction Co., Ltd., a specialized waste disposal company, paid a total of KRW 641,305,00 to four business entities, such as the KCAS and the KCAS Construction Co., Ltd., a specialized waste disposal company, and entrusted the disposal thereof on October 2014.

Since then, the plaintiff company increased the construction cost of KRW 641,305,00 to be paid to the plan for the resolution of the maritime construction disputes.

Of the total waste disposal cost of KRW 641,305,00, the cost of waste disposal buried on the seven parcels of the instant land is KRW 336,176,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Gap evidence 10-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is that, at the time of concluding a sales contract on the instant land with the Defendants, the Plaintiff Company already buried wastes that require high-amount disposal costs in the instant land underground, and thus, the Defendants filed a claim for damages based on the seller’s warranty liability on the premise that there exists “a defect that does not have any quality or condition anticipated to be equipped with the subject matter of sale.” Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether the wastes were buried in the instant land at the time of concluding

(b) judgment;