1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2006, the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) under which they entered into a new construction contract for the FJ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with E Co., Ltd. and constructed the instant apartment.

The Defendants entered into a sales contract with E on June 20, 2007 with regard to the instant apartment units G (hereinafter “instant apartment units”).

B. The apartment of this case was approved on September 3, 2010, and the Defendants occupied and resided in the apartment at issue around that time.

C. As the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant apartment, the part to be constructed according to the design drawing was not constructed, or changed differently from the defective construction or design drawing, and thus, there was a defect, such as the entry in the attached Table of Defects, in the instant apartment, and the total defect repair cost is KRW 16,020,446.

On the other hand, E was declared bankrupt on August 30, 2017 by Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hahap10173.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of the commission of appraisal by appraiser H of the first instance court, result of the commission of appraisal supplementation, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not bear liability for damages in lieu of defect repairs in relation to defects that occurred in the apartment at issue for the following reasons.

The plaintiff is merely a contractor that received a contract for new apartment construction from E, and there is no direct contractual relationship with the defendants, so there is no liability to compensate the defendants for damages in lieu of defect repair.

The defendants can exercise the right to pay a defect repair in subrogation of the plaintiff as the creditor of E, and there is no fact that they exercise the right to pay a defect repair in subrogation of the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove the insolvency of E, etc.

The Defendants asserted.