1. All appeals filed by the Defendants and the motion for the return of provisional payments filed by Defendant Promotion Enterprise Company are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment on the application for provisional payment by the Defendant promoting company, the reasons for this court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The main points of the assertion of the defects related to the PTSS tons (joint 48) are as follows: “B. Defendant promotion enterprise and the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation’s Claim; 1) the main points of the argument are as follows: (i) the co-defendants of the first instance court ordered the use of the PTSS tons by means of design drawings; (ii) the Co-defendants of the first instance court ordered the use of the PTSS tons by external finishing materials of the instant apartment through the design drawings; and (iii) the Defendant promotion enterprise constructed the construction by using the PTSS tons of the instant apartment subject to quality inspection in accordance with the Korean Industrial Standards.

② Design defect is that the co-defendants of the first instance trial designed to construct the PTSS tons with the external finishing materials of the apartment of this case, and the Defendant’s promotion enterprise was not involved in the aforementioned design, and thus, is not liable to warranty against defects.

③ Even if the design defect is not a defect in the first instance trial, the co-defendants of the first instance trial ordered the construction of the PTLS tons with external finishing materials, and the Defendant promotion company executed the construction as is. This constitutes “when the defect in the subject matter arises from the order of the contractor” under the main sentence of Article 669 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant promotion company, the contractor, should be exempted from the warranty liability.

④ The responsibility of quality inspection for the PTRS tons is for the co-defendants of the first instance court, the subcontractor, and the supervisor entrusted by the subcontractor, and the Defendant promotion enterprise has executed the work after being determined to be suitable for materials by the supervisor. The defect in the quality of the PTRS takes place not in the area of the Defendant promotion enterprise but in the area of the contractor’s responsibility.