Plaintiff Co-Litigation Intervenor

AAAA

2. Each of the remaining claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff co-litigants shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The plaintiff: x members and the defendant's claims and claims against the plaintiff in this case

shall pay 6% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment of all applications for change.

2. The Intervenor Co-Litigation Co-Litigation Co-Litigation Co-Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”): the Defendant pays to the Intervenor Co-Litigation the amount calculated by applying the respective ratio of 6% per annum from October 31, 2014 to December 24, 2015, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

3. The Intervenor AA: The Defendant shall pay the Intervenor AA with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the Intervenor’s written application for participation in the instant co-litigation to the day of full payment.

4. Intervenor Aa: The Defendant shall pay to Intervenor A 68,54,159 won with interest of 68,54,159 won per annum from September 24, 2016 to the delivery date of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

(a) Conclusion of a contract and construction of buildings;

1) ADDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DDD") is a project proprietor who newly constructed and sold EEEE building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), and on April 27, 2004, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the new construction of this case at the xx of the construction cost and 36 months after the commencement of the construction period (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case"). The contract of this case is the contract of this case.

The provisions related to repairs of defects in a contract shall be as follows:

2) The instant building was approved for use on July 13, 2007.

B. Progress of the preceding lawsuit

1) A defect occurred in the section for common use of the instant building due to non-construction, modified construction, defective construction, etc., and the Defendant performed partial repair of the defect at the request of the sectional owners of the instant building.

2) The council of occupants' representatives of the building of this case, notwithstanding the defendant's defect repair, for the remaining defects in the section for common use of the building of this case, 485.15 of the total number of 845 units of the building of this case

On December 30, 2010, DDR and the defendant filed a claim for damages (Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gahap135149) against DDR and the defendant (including the appeal court, hereinafter referred to as the "prior lawsuit of this case").

3) On August 24, 2012, the above court dismissed the lawsuit against the defendant of the council of occupants' representatives of the building in this case on the ground that DD was not insolvent of DD, the debtor, and the Seoul High Court, on May 13, 2014, recognized that there were defects as described in the separate list of defects in the attached section due to non-construction, erroneous construction, defective construction, etc. on the part of the building in this case, the appellate court rendered a judgment to the council of occupants' representatives that "DD paid xx and damages for delay from February 24, 2012" to the council of occupants' representatives of the building in this case, which became final and conclusive on August 20, 2014.

4)DDD spent the Plaintiff’s appointment feexxx in the process of the instant prior suit (i.e., the first instance trial Xxxxxxxxx in the appellate trial + the final appeal trialxxxxx in the final appeal) and the stampxxxxx in the final appeal (i.e., the appellate trialxxx in the final appeal + the final appealxxxx in the final appeal + the service fee),xxxxxx in the final appeal + the final appealxxx in the final appeal) and the combinedxxxx in the final appeal.

5) On October 27, 2015, with respect to the instant prior suit, Diplomatic Decision was rendered on October 27, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2014Kade3738) that the sum of the costs of lawsuit to be repaid to the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant building was x won.

C. Lawsuit claiming damages against the defendant of DDR

1) On May 1, 2013, DDR filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of damages in lieu of defect repairs on the instant building and damages for nonperformance of obligations under the instant contract (including Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap33541, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant related lawsuit”).

2) On December 24, 2015, the above court recognized that the claim for damages in lieu of the defect repair against the defendant of DD on December 24, 2015 was "in the list of the defect in the attached section for common use," xxxxxxxxxxx, 'the cost of repair for the part of other parts of the carpet on December 35, 201', 'Additional 1-1. the cost of repair for the part of other parts of the carpet', 'Additional xxxxxxxxx, 'the horizontal activity level and installation error of each floor on the floor on each floor', 'xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, 75%) and delay damages therefrom, and the claim for damages due to default was filed by DDD in the course of performing the preceding lawsuit.

3) ADD and the defendant appealed on January 12, 2016 against the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2016Na2006680).

(d) A collection order, etc. for the seizure and collection.

1) Several seizure and collection orders as follows were served on the Defendant regarding the instant claim.

2)DD paid each of the amount of delinquent taxes of KRW 91,593,100 on May 12, 2016, KRW 193,100 on October 25, 2016, KRW xx0 on February 10, 2017, and the amount of delinquent national taxes of KRW x0 on February 10, 2017.

E. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

On October 26, 2016, the appellate court of the instant lawsuit revoked and dismissed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor CCC served the Defendant with a collection order for the seizure and collection of claims, and DDR lost its standing to be a party, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 16, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, A or 1, Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion

DD has the claim of this case corresponding to xxxxx in the defendant (=1xxxxxxxxx) and damages for delay. Since the plaintiff and the intervenors received the seizure and collection order on the above claim, the defendant is liable to pay each collection money and damages for delay to the plaintiff and intervenors.

3. Determination on the existence and scope of claims

(a) Damages in lieu of defect repairs;

1) Amount of damages

Article 25 of the contract of this case provides that the period of warranty for the repair of the building of this case shall be two years from the date of approval by the competent authority for the use of the building of this case. The fact that the date of approval for the use of the building of this case was July 13, 2007 is as mentioned above. In full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 8 and 10, DD should be seen as the defendant's request for additional repair of the entire double floor (OAFlor) of this case's building of this case's building of this case's building of this case's 20 years from October 15, 2008 to November 5, 2008, 2000's 20 years from the date of inspection of the defect repair of the 10th floor of this case's 'the 20 years from the date of request for additional repair of the 20th floor of this case', 20 years from the completion of the 20th Da and 20.

In addition, the defect repair cost of the item of "the non-establishment cost of each floor" on the 35th floor was xx won, 'Additional 1-1 on the carpet part repair cost', 'Additional 1-2 on the 1-2th floor size, 'Additional 1-2 on the 1-2th floor level and installation error', as seen earlier, xxxx is the same. Therefore, the damages to be paid by the Defendant to D for the instant defect that occurred within the defect warranty period based on the contract of this case is xx (xx won + xxxxx won + xxxxxx).

2) Whether defect repair is completed

A) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant completed the defect repair during the two-year defect warranty period and received the defect repair completion certificate, and thereafter, since DD or occupants did not request the defect repair, it cannot be deemed that the defect occurred within two years.

B) Determination

The fact that DD requested the defendant to repair the defects of this case within two years from the date of approval for use is as seen earlier, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 8, it is recognized that the defendant requested DD to understand the delay in the repair of defects and to preferentially issue the certificate of completion of the repair of defects to DD.

Since the defect liability period means the period of occurrence of defect and the period of exclusion, it does not mean the duration of the defect liability, it is reasonable to view that the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the defect that has already been requested due to the occurrence of defect and the exercise of rights during the above period, even if the above period has already elapsed or the certificate of completion of defect repair has been issued.

3) Whether liability for damages is limited

A) Defendant’s assertion

The amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to pay to DD is not the full amount of the defect repair cost of the instant defect, but it should be limited to the amount that DD paid to DD to the council of occupants' representatives of the instant defect according to the outcome of the instant prior suit.

B) Determination

The Defendant’s liability for DD is the liability for damages in lieu of the defect repair borne by the contractor to the contractor pursuant to Article 667 of the Civil Act, and the amount of damages is equivalent to the cost of defect repair incurred by the Defendant’s fault in the execution of the instant defect. As such, the liability borne by DD to the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant case differs from the grounds and scope of the claim (the instant lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiff by taking over the damage liability in lieu of the defect repair from the sectional owners’ representatives of the instant case, and the Plaintiff is not exempted from the liability for damages attributable to the untransfer household due to the instant lawsuit).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit (However, the circumstances that limit the plaintiff's responsibility to 75% of the defect repair cost assessed in the prior lawsuit of this case are considered in the following limitation of liability):

4) Limitation of liability

In full view of the various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, there may be a natural aging phenomenon in the building of this case, and there is no possibility that the defect has been expanded due to the tenant's fault in the management, and accordingly, it is difficult to strictly distinguish the part caused by the error in construction from among the defect in the building of this case and the part caused by the natural aging phenomenon from among the defect in the building of this case, and even in the previous lawsuit of this case, it is reasonable for the defendant to limit the amount of damages to DD to 75% in accordance with the principle of fairness or the principle of good faith.

(b) Compensation for losses due to default;

1) Liability for damages

In the construction of the building of this case, the fact that the defects of this case occurred due to the failure to construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing or the erroneous construction or defective construction, and the fact that DDD incurred damage to the x members including the commission of the attorney, and the sum of the x members of the cost of the lawsuit in the process of the execution of the preceding lawsuit by DDD as seen earlier.

The Defendant is liable to compensate for the expenses that DDR would not have incurred if DDR had not been incurred due to default (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da70337, Aug. 20, 2004). The expenses related to the prior suit in this case were not spent by DDD if the Defendant had not incurred the Defendant’s default, and if a new building was defective, the project proprietor filed a lawsuit against the sectional owner or the council of occupants’ representatives claiming warranty against the liability for defect liability, and the project proprietor appointed a legal representative to challenge the new building. The payment of the cost of the lawsuit to the other party according to the outcome of the lawsuit is a situation ordinarily anticipated, and it is reasonable in proximate causal relation. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the total amount of DDxxxx won + the cost of the lawsuit.

2) Whether the defendant's liability is mitigated

A) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant's liability shall also be mitigated according to the ratio of partial defect items that recognize the defendant's liability among the whole defect items and the ratio of assignment of claims in the preceding lawsuit in this case.

B) Determination

The defendant's liability for damages caused by incomplete performance is related to the damages actually paid or incurred by the plaintiff due to the defendant's incomplete performance. It is separate from the liability that DDD bears to the council of occupants' representatives of the building of this case, and it cannot be applied to the grounds that restrict the liability for damages in lieu of defect repair, such as the defect liability period, etc., and

(c)Calculation;

The amount of damages that the Defendant, as the claim of this case, is liable to compensate for to DDD is the amount of damages in lieu of the defect repair: Xx won (xx won x 75% x 75%, and less than won) and the sum ofxx won andxx won (xx won xxxx won xxxxx won) as compensation for the damages arising from the incomplete performance of the obligation under the contract of this case.

4. Competition of seizure;

It is obvious that the total amount claimed by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor to the Defendant as a collection creditor exceeds the total amount of xxxxx that the Defendant bears to DD. As such, if the total amount of the collection claims claimed by the Plaintiff, the collection creditor, and the intervenors under Article 249(2) of the Civil Execution Act exceeds the amount of seized claims, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has the obligation to deposit the entire amount of claims in accordance with Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act

Therefore, from July 28, 2016 following the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff and the intervenors the above xx members and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation. The above amount shall be paid by deposit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff and the intervenors shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as of the ground for rejection, and the provisional execution shall not be declared as ordered, since there are reasonable grounds for not making the declaration of provisional execution.