The council of occupants' representatives (Law Firm Cheongyang, Attorneys Man-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Newly Inserted by Act No. 1448, Dec. 1, 2011>

January 29, 2010

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) 284,161,432 won and 5% per annum from December 12, 2009 to February 12, 2010, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, for Defendant New CD-style Industry Co., Ltd.;

B. The Defendant Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd.: (a) the amount of KRW 230,620,356, out of the amount stated in each of the subparagraphs 1 and 20% per annum from December 12, 2009 to February 12, 2010; and (b) the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

C. Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.

(1) From November 4, 2008 to KRW 107,704,467 among the amount described in each of the above paragraph (a) above and KRW 101,00,000 among the amount stated in Defendant New CD-based Industry Co., Ltd., and each of them, the remainder of KRW 6,704,467 from December 12, 2009;

(2) 26,561,983 Won and its corresponding from December 12, 2009

Until February 12, 2010, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, CD-style Industry Co., Ltd. and Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by Defendant 1, CD-style Industry Co., Ltd. and Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd., and one-fourth of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. shall be borne by

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 358,071,30 won per annum for each of the 358,071,330 won and the 20% interest per annum for each of the above 358,071,30 won and for each of the above 358,071,30 won and each of the above 358,79,430 won and the 101,00,000 won among the above 358,071,30 won and each of the above 134,79,430 won and the 101,00,000 won among the above 359,79,430 won, and the 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of the delivery of the copy of the claim and the 112,000 won per annum for each of the above 3306,63,614, and the 2010 interest per annum for each of the above claims.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to manage the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff is an autonomous management body composed of the occupants, to which 4, 224, Dong-dong, Choyang-dong, Choyang-dong, and Mayang-dong, the Plaintiff is an autonomous management body, and the Defendant Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd., (hereinafter “Defendant Land Trust”) is a business entity that constructed and sold the apartment of this case. Defendant Ga-dong, Ga-dong, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Construction Co., Ltd.”) is a person who constructed the apartment of this case by being awarded a contract for the new construction of the apartment of this case from the Defendant Land Trust, and Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) guarantees the duty to repair the defects of the apartment of this case from Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. as follows.

B. On September 10, 2007, the Defendant insurance company entered into a contract for the warranty of defects with respect to the instant apartment with the Defendant construction company as the initial viewing of the guarantee creditor (hereinafter “instant warranty contract”) and issued the warranty bond as shown below. The Defendant insurance company, individually, entered into the warranty contract of this case according to the sequences indicated below.

The warranty insurance policy warranty period of 123,910, 362 from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007, 123,910, 3622 817-023-207070376 from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007, 123,910, 362 3817-023-23-20738, 2079, 207, 207. 185, 186, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 300, 207, 2017

C. Article 1 (Guarantee Liability) of the instant Guarantee Agreement provides that “The Defendant insurance company shall pay obligations owed to the other party (guaranteed creditors) in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Guarantee Agreement by failing to perform the obligation despite the request for the performance of remuneration for defects arising out of the design documents at the time of inspection of the use within the warranty period after the contractor has undergone inspection or inspection of the usage of construction works on the front side, etc., and the Defendant insurance company shall pay the other party (guaranteed creditors) according to the terms and conditions of this Guarantee.” The special clause of the Guarantee Agreement states that “the rights of the insured shall be automatically succeeded to by the council

D. On October 27, 2006, the approval for use was made with respect to the apartment of this case. After that, the Plaintiff, an autonomous management body of the apartment of this case, constituted the guarantee creditor of the instant apartment, the guarantee creditor of the instant apartment, was changed to the Plaintiff.

E. In constructing the instant apartment, the Defendant Construction Company did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawings, or revised differently from the defective construction or design drawings, resulting in a defect that may hinder the function, aesthetic view, or safety of the instant apartment in the section for common use and section for exclusive use.

F. Accordingly, from September 2007, the Plaintiff continuously demanded the Defendant Construction Company to repair part of the defects indicated in the separate sheet, and the Defendant Construction Company also required to perform part of the repair work. However, the Defendant Construction Company failed to perform its duty to repair defects, such as where the repair is not properly performed or where the repair is not performed at all, and there is a defect as indicated in the separate sheet as to the apartment of this case, and the same amount is required as indicated in the defect repair cost table as below.

After the pre-use inspection for the 10-year section for common use for the 197, 877, 269, 24, 094, 712, 919, 510, 3124, 155, 22, 280, 8537, 445, 1736, 741, 741, 706, 393, 393, 249, 7961, 51, 765 329,0372,2137,479, 506, 5838, 975, 975, 0537, 2675, 197, 197, 506, 506, 97, 975, 197, 26375, 2537, 2547, 2547, 2537

G. The Plaintiff acquired each damage claim in lieu of the defect repair from the sectional owners of 177 households among the total apartment units of the instant apartment units as shown in the list of the generation generation in the attached Form No. 224 households, and notified the Defendant Land Trust and Construction Company of the transfer of the claim on October 5, 2009, and reached the Defendant Land Trust and Construction Company on October 6, 2009, and the specific transfer of the damage claim is as indicated in the list of the generation generation in the attached Form No. 21,836.82 square meters in total, while the total area of the apartment units of the instant apartment units of the instant case reaches the total cost of repair of the generation generation in the attached Form No. 21,836.82 square meters in total, 84.9 square meters in total x 114 households in x 80.73 square meters in x 30 households in total x 30 x 84.730 square meters in small scale; hereinafter the same).

(h) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

【former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7520 of May 26, 2005)

Article 46 (Defect Repairs)

(1) The project undertaker (including the owner who has built the collective housing aiming at parcelling-out after obtaining a construction permit under Article 8 of the Building Act and the work executor who has performed the act falling under Article 42 (2) 2; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall be liable to repair the defects of collective housing under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(3) When significant defects have occurred in the portions of proof-proof structures of multi-family housing, the project proprietor under paragraph (1) shall be liable to repair them within the extent of ten years from the date of usage inspection (referring to the date of approval for temporary use, where approval for temporary use has been obtained for the whole multi-family housing within the housing complex) and to compensate for losses incurred thereby. In such cases, the defect repair period by structure

【Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7520, May 26, 2005)】

Article 2 (Definitions)

10. The term "occupant" means any of the following persons:

(a) Persons who are supplied with housing, in cases of Articles 13, 38, 86, 89, and 98;

(b) Owners of the housing, in the case of Articles 54 and 57;

(c) Owners of the housing, or spouses and lineal ascendants or descendants representing the owners, in the cases of Articles 42 through 45, 55 and 59;

Article 46 (Liability for Warranty, Repair of Defects, etc.)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, where the provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act are applied mutatis mutandis with respect to the warranty liability for the sale of a building, a project proprietor (including a project proprietor who has constructed an apartment house for the purpose of sale after obtaining a construction permit under Article 8 of the Building Act and a contractor who has performed an act under Article 42 (2) 2; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall repair the defects at the request of the occupants and other persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any defects prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as rupture, subsidence, damage, etc. due to a mistake in construction, have occurred within the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree, from the date of inspection for the use of collective housing (referring to the date of approval for temporary use, where approval for temporary use is obtained for the whole collective housing within a housing complex) or from the date of approval for the use of collective housing under Article 18 of the Building Act,

(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.

Addenda (Law No. 7520, May 26, 2005)

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

【Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19053, Sep. 16, 2005)】

Article 59 (Defect Repairs by Project Undertaker)

(1) The scope of defects for which a project undertaker (referring to a project undertaker under the main sentence of Article 46 (2); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Articles 60 and 61) is responsible for repair under Article 46 (1) of the Act, the defect liability period for each load-proof structure and each installation work, etc. shall be as listed in the Tables 6 and 7.

(2) "Persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as occupants, etc. of multi-family housing" in Article 46 (1) of the Act means occupants, the council of occupants' representatives, the management body, or the management body organized under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives, etc.

[Attachment 6] Scope of Defects subject to Defect Repairs and Liability Period by Facility Construction (Related to Article 59(1))

1. Scope of defects;

A defect that may cause harm to the function, tolerance, or safety of a building or facility due to rupture, rupture, collapse, damage, collapse, leakage, operation or failure of function due to a mistake in the construction work, a defect that may cause harm to the function, tolerance, or safety of the building or facility due to a defect in the construction work.

2. Warranty liability period by facility works;

17. The warranty liability period of one to three years for each construction of facilities for each item (hereinafter referred to as the “liability period”).

[Attachment 7] The scope of defects subject to defect repair by load-bearing structure and the warranty liability period (related to Article 59(1))

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 is judged that the apartment house is likely to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis under Article 62 (3).

2. Defect repair period by load-proof structure;

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

(b) Boll, floor, and roof: Five years;

【Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 7502, May 26, 2005)】

The special provisions of the Housing Act concerning the management and criteria of collective housing (Relation to the Housing Act) shall be effective as long as they conflict with this Act and do not impair 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.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 12, the result of the non-party's appraisal of defects, the result of each fact inquiry to the appraiser of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both parties' defense and determination on the scope of defects, etc.

A. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The entire design assertion

The plaintiff sought defect repair expenses calculated on the basis of the entire Do governor on the premise that the entire outer wall should be repaired after repairing the heat generated from the outer wall of the apartment of this case. However, in full view of the non-party's appraisal result and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above appraiser calculated the total Do governor's cost as well as the partial Do governor's cost as to the cracks generated from the interior and outer wall of the building of this case by selecting two methods of sealing the Do governor with a width of 30 cm for each item to 30 cm for repair, and the partial Do governor's size is 13,345.79 cm for 862.5% of the total Do governor's size and 6.5% of the total Do governor's size is 13,345.79 m2 of the Housing Act's size, and it is sufficient that the total Do governor's cost is more than 100,000 won than the total Do governor's cost.

(2) Claim regarding the failure to perform the construction of the windowing in the stairs room (attached Form 1-9 "Items 1-9", hereinafter referred to as "items")

Since the plaintiff sought 7,038,853 won as remuneration costs for the above defects, according to the result of the appraisal of the non-party's defects and the result of the fact-finding conducted by the appraiser of this court, the appraiser determined the cost of materials used for the Free Costing Corporation as 17,50 won, and corrected the cost of materials thereafter as 375 won, and it is recognized that the cost of repairing the above defects was 5,948,063 won when reflecting the corrected cost of materials. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion seeking payment of the above amount exceeding the above 5,948,063 won is without merit.

(3) Related assertions on non-construction of the basement floor of the stairs room (public 1-17)

The plaintiff sought 2,233,529 won as expenses for repair of the above defects. Thus, according to the result of the appraiser's appraisal of the non-party's defects and the result of the fact inquiry of the appraiser of this court, the appraiser calculated 2,233,529 won as expenses for repair of the above defects. In the fact inquiry of the defendants, the above defect was confirmed to have been double calculated as expenses for repair because it overlaps with the public 1-8 defect. Thus, the above 2,233,529 won should be excluded from the expenses for repair of defects calculated double, and the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants sought it is without merit.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1)An assertion relating to painting width

The defendants asserted that it would be sufficient to color the cracks generated on the outer wall of the apartment of this case with the width of 10cm. Accordingly, according to the results of the appraisal of defects by the non-party appraiser and the fact-finding by the appraiser of this court, the appraiser's repair of the cracks generated on the concrete structure is not carried out in a certain pattern, namely, the cracks of the structure, i.e., the cracks, stuffs, water leakages, steel outflows, etc. (herat width, depth, density), so it is inevitable to determine the construction error of the parts after the repair. Thus, in light of the error scope (which places 15cm in height on both sides along the heat), the repair cost is calculated with the width of 30cm, and there is no evidence that 30cm of the size of the apartment of this case can not be viewed as the standard width, and there is no reasonable method to apply 30cm of the size of the apartment of this case with the size of the apartment of this case.

(2) A claim relating to the floor garment construction (public 1-8)

The defendants argued that the apartment stairs and the elevator holes of this case are constructed with the floor finishing material in the form of a te- sp- sp- sp- sp- sp- sp- s-s- s-s- s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

(3) Claims related to the construction of the floor and the non-construction of the stairs in the stairs room (public 1-11) and the stalth slope (public 1-18) of the stairs room.

The defendants claim that it is wrong that the appraiser's judgment was made as a defect on the ground that the slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick sl.

(4) Related assertions about waterproof diversity of underground parking lots (public 1-31)

The Defendants asserted that the interior columns of an underground parking lot that are not exempt from external walls do not ordinarily turn on a waterproof water supply, and that they cannot be seen as defects. Accordingly, according to the results of the Nonparty’s appraisal of defects and the results of the fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, unlike the completion drawings, the Defendants acknowledged the fact that a waterproof watering construction has not been constructed on the underground parking lot columns, and the appraiser is likely to put the damp water of the lower part of the underground floor on the ground of a waterproof water supply, and thereby, caused the hindrance to the apartment of this case. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence that the appraiser’s determination is not remarkably unreasonable in light of the specific defects.

(5) Claims related to the unsatisfying of the floor of an underground parking lot (public 1-33)

The defendants asserted that the defects may not be viewed as defects in the underground parking lot floor when taking the compact pounds into the floor of the underground parking lot. Accordingly, according to the results of the appraisal of the non-party's defects and the fact-finding on the appraiser of the court of this case, unlike the design drawing, the apartment parking lot floor of this case in question is on the apartment of this case where the string of the floor is likely to be contaminated and damaged if the string of the floor is not caused by shock, and thereby the apartment of this case may be found to be defective. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to deem that the determination by the appraiser is remarkably unreasonable in light of the specific defects.

(6) Claim on the defective operation of each such fire-fighting system (public 1-43)

The defendants asserted that the amount of 3,510,675 won should be reduced excessively. Thus, according to the result of the appraisal of the non-party's defects and the result of the fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, some fire reduction devices installed in the apartment in the apartment in this case were found to have occurred. The reason for the error is the combination of various causes, such as the defect of depreciation, failure of occupants' maintenance and management, etc., and the fact that the appraiser calculated the cost of replacing the fire reduction devices in the apartment in this case by deeming the fire reduction devices in which the malfunction occurred to be 10% in total. Thus, there is no evidence that the determination of such appraiser is unreasonable in light of the specific defect situation, and the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(7) Claim relating to inundation (public 1-52)

The defendants calculated the cost of repair by selecting the automatic drainage pumps for the defects of flooding in the 7 mans of the complex, and the appraiser calculated the cost of remuneration by selecting the automatic drainage pumps. This is rather likely to cause a sudden accident, which is not an appropriate remuneration method. Thus, according to the results of appraisal of the non-party's defects and the results of fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, it was not constructed but has been constructed in order to prevent inundation such as Manle, etc. However, the appraiser calculated the cost of remuneration by deeming that it is appropriate for the appraiser to keep the wires left on the top of the last floor in order to prevent flood in the current construction condition and to construct the drainage pipes through the automatic drainage pumps. The nature drainage method claimed by the defendants can be acknowledged as excessive cost of remuneration compared to the remuneration method by the appraiser. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit, since there is no evidence to deem that the determination by the appraiser is considerably unreasonable in light of the specific defect situation.

(8) Claim concerning the non-construction of CCTV in a complex (public 1-53)

The defendants asserted that the failure to install CCTV in the security room cannot be seen as a defect since it is possible to install 7 CCTVs in the underground parking lot and children's play room. Accordingly, according to the results of the appraiser's defect appraisal of the non-party and the results of the fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, the purchaser of the apartment of this case is obliged to install CCTVs at the location of the apartment complex including underground parking lots and children's play grounds. Accordingly, there is no CCTV installed in the underground parking lot and children's play room, but the CCTVs are installed in the underground parking lot and children's play room, but the appraiser determined that the installation of CCTVs is defective because it is possible to monitor 24 hours as stated in the unit, and there is no evidence that the judgment of the appraiser is remarkably unreasonable in light of the specific defect situation. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(9) Non-construction of the floor of the kitchen singcam and the sub-household of furniture (former oil 2-16)

The defendants asserted that it cannot be viewed as a defect since it is not constructed because there are many concerns about water leakage in the downstream, so it cannot be viewed as a defect. Accordingly, according to the result of the appraisal of the non-party's defects and the result of the fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, the facts that the floor of the apartment of this case, different from the design drawing, has not been constructed, the construction of the apartment of this case is not consistent with the horizontal level, and the occurrence of dust and the inflow of foreign substances is likely to occur, and the appraiser's judgment is judged as a defect because the apartment of this case causes a functional and aesthetic obstacle to the apartment of this case. Thus, there is no evidence that the judgment of the appraiser is remarkably unreasonable in light of the specific defect situation, and the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(10) Claim on Non-performance of Donation such as street street on the side of the children's play grounds (public 3-7)

The defendants asserted that the non-performance of donation does not constitute a defect in the construction of the defendants, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a defect. Accordingly, according to the result of the appraisal of defects by the non-party appraiser and the result of the fact-finding on the appraiser of this court, according to the design of the apartment of this case, it is acknowledged that construction of a warning machine on the road on the side of the children's play area was not constructed on the street, etc., but accordingly, it was not occupied on the street, etc. because the city did not accept the street, etc. at the beginning of the early of the early of the early of the early of the early of the early of the early of the early, but the Si Corporation failed to construct the warning machine on the street, etc., unlike the design drawing, and therefore, the failure of the street, etc. to enter the street, etc. constitutes a defect in the construction of the defendants and thereby, it can be deemed that the function, safety, and aesthetic view of the apartment

(11) Relevant arguments regarding the installation of the main entrance and exit bulletin (No. 4-2).

The defendants asserted that the above defect was constructed in the same way as the completion drawing, and therefore, according to the result of the appraiser's appraisal of the non-party's defect and the result of the fact-finding on the appraiser's appraiser of this court, the fact that the report was not installed in the main entrance area of the apartment house of this case, and that the appraiser's failure to install the report causes inconvenience to pedestrians' passage. Thus, the defendants' determination of the appraiser's defect is not reasonable in light of the specific defect situation. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. Determination as to each claim against Defendant Land Trust and Construction Company

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Defendant Land Trust’s liability for damages

(A) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s land trust is a project undertaker who constructed and sold the instant apartment, and under Article 46(1) and (3) of the Housing Act, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages in lieu of the repair of defects existing in the instant apartment within the scope of the said damage claim that was transferred from the sectional owners of the instant apartment under Article 46(1)

(B) The Defendant’s land trust asserts that, among the instant apartment buildings, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim the repair of defects under Article 46(1) of the Housing Act, since the Plaintiff did not acquire the instant apartment as a substantial business entity that had entered into a trust contract with the Defendant’s land trust and carried out the instant new apartment construction project, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim the repair of defects under Article 46(1).

According to the statements in Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul and Eul Construction Company agreed to jointly implement the new apartment construction project of this case on or around March 2004, Eul and the defendant Construction Company entered into a trust agreement for the construction of the apartment building of this case with the defendant land trust. Two dust Won and defendant Construction Company agreed to transfer the ownership of the apartment unsold in lots to two dusts and defendant Construction Company due to the provisional settlement to terminate the trust agreement with the defendant land trust on or around June 2007. Accordingly, it is recognized that the divided ownership of 33 households of this case (the households indicated as two dusts in the list of the pre-households) has been transferred as two dusts. Meanwhile, in full view of the evidence and the purport of Eul's argument as a whole, since the new apartment construction project of this case was concluded with the defendant land trust of this case, the seller still did not enter the status of the land trust of this case in the name of the defendant land under the name of the business entity, and the seller still did not enter the status of the land under the housing construction agreement of this case.

In addition, according to the above facts, although the two members are the owners of the apartment of this case, it is recognized that they are not the buyers, but the project proprietor under Article 46 of the Housing Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provide that the project proprietor is responsible for compensating for damages caused by the defect to the occupants. According to Article 2 of the Housing Act, the concept of the occupants under the Housing Act does not include the owners of the housing, but excludes the owners who are not the buyers. Thus, the project proprietor subject to Article 46 of the Housing Act is the defendant land trust, and the project proprietor subject to Article 46 of the Housing Act is the defendant land trust, and the two members are not the owners of the apartment of this case, and cannot exercise the right to claim the repair of defects under Article 46 of the Housing Act, and the above assertion in the defendant land trust

(C) The Defendant’s land trust has the right to seek reimbursement of the cost of repairing defects against two Koreas under the above trust agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s defense is offset against the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair liability of 33 households among the instant apartment buildings that the Plaintiff acquired from two Koreas.

In full view of the statement in the evidence No. 7 of this case, it is recognized that the above trust contract provides that 200 won and the defendant construction company shall be the beneficiary of the above trust contract (Article 13), the expenses for repair, preservation, etc. of the trusted real estate shall be borne by the beneficiary; the expenses for the repair, preservation, etc. of the trusted real estate shall be paid from the trust property; where the defendant land trust cannot be paid from the trust property, it shall be paid from the trust property; if necessary, it shall be paid to the beneficiary; and if necessary, it shall be paid in advance to the beneficiary; and if necessary, the defendant land trust can be claimed from the beneficiary of the trust contract with regard to the damages incurred in lieu of the defect repair borne by the occupants, etc. of the apartment house of this case as the project owner

On the other hand, the fact that the defect occurred in the apartment of this case as shown in the attached list of defects is as seen above. On January 29, 2010, at the fifth day of pleading of this case, it is clear in the record that the defendant land trust expressed to the plaintiff the prior right to indemnity against the plaintiff and the intention to offset the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair of 33 households owned by the plaintiff, within the equal amount. Thus, the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair of the above 33 households that the plaintiff acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished within the equivalent amount to the prior right to indemnity of the defendant land trust retroactively to January 29, 2010, which is the above set-off date. Therefore, the above defense of the defendant land trust is reasonable.

(D) Therefore, Defendant land trust bears the liability to compensate the Plaintiff for the defect of 144 households, excluding the above 33 households, among the 177 households that the Plaintiff acquired, in lieu of defect repair.

(2) Defendant Construction Company’s liability for damages

(A) The former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003) provides only the warranty liability of the seller, but does not provide for the buyer's warranty liability. The former Housing Construction Promotion Act completely revised into the Housing Act by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003, Article 46 (1) of the Housing Act provides for the defect warranty liability of the contractor (including the owner of an apartment building constructed for the purpose of sale with a building permit granted under Article 8 of the Building Act and the contractor who performs an act under Article 42 (2) 2; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article). Since Article 46 (1) of the Housing Act as amended by Act No. 7520, May 26, 2005 provides that the contractor bears the warranty liability of the contractor who purchased the apartment house, which is the owner of the apartment house, in light of the fact that the contractor bears the warranty liability of the contractor who acquired the apartment house in question.

(B) The Defendant Construction Company asserted that, as the substantial business entity that implemented the instant apartment construction project by entering into a trust contract with the Defendant Land Trust and the instant apartment, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim the repair of defects under Article 46(1) of the Housing Act, since it is not a sale of the instant apartment. However, as seen earlier, the business entity subject to Article 46 of the Housing Act is the Defendant Land Trust and Construction Corporation, which is the Defendant Construction Corporation, and the two members are not the owners of the instant apartment, cannot exercise the right to claim the repair of defects under Article 46 of the Housing Act on the ground that they are not the owners of the instant apartment. Therefore,

(C) According to a joint agreement entered into with two members, Defendant Construction Co., Ltd., agreed that the cost of repairing defects incurred in the apartment of the instant apartment shall be borne by two members and 50% by the Defendant Construction Co., Ltd., and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek reimbursement of the cost of repairing defects for two members, which is set off against the damages claim of 33 households out of the instant apartment that the Plaintiff acquired from two members.

According to the evidence evidence No. 6, 2004, 204, 2004, 2008 Won and Defendant Construction Company concluded a joint project agreement for the construction of the apartment of this case and agreed to invest 50% of the business input cost from the Defendant’s land trust to the time before the execution of the fund is made, but it can be deemed that it agreed to bear 50% of the expenses necessary for the new construction of the apartment of this case, and it cannot be deemed that 200 and Defendant Construction Company paid 50% of the defect repair cost incurred in the apartment of this case.

Next, Defendant Construction Company's defense that it offsets the damage liability in lieu of the defect repair of the above 33 households based on the right to indemnity under Article 17 of the trust agreement. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the fact that the trust agreement stipulates two lusium and the Defendant Construction Company as joint beneficiaries (Article 13), the expenses for repairing and preserving real estate in trust shall be borne by the beneficiary. Defendant Land Trust shall pay the expenses for repairing and preserving real estate in trust from the trust property, but if it is impossible to pay the expenses from trust property, it shall be claimed and received from the beneficiary and paid to the beneficiary, and if necessary, it shall be allowed to have the beneficiary deposit a considerable amount of money in advance (Article 17). According to the above facts, two lusium and the Defendant Construction Company jointly bear the expenses for repairing the defect, but Defendant Construction Company did not recognize the prior right to indemnity of the cost for repairing the defect repair of the apartment in this case. Thus, Defendant Construction Company cannot be deemed joint beneficiaries, so Defendant Construction Company's defense against the above Defendant Construction Company cannot be deemed joint beneficiaries.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) The plaintiff's bond transferee's household and the ratio of its total area

As seen earlier, the household to which the Plaintiff transferred the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair in this case is 177 units among the 224 units of the sectional owners of the apartment in this case. According to the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including the provisional number), the results of appraisal of the non-party's defects and the purport of the whole pleadings, the entire area of the apartment in this case is 21,836.82m2. Of these, the whole area of the apartment in this case is 177m2 and the total area of the 16,615.91m2, the total area of the 144 units of the apartment in this case, except for the 33 units of the apartment in this case, owned by the two sources of the apartment in this case, is 13,180.34m2, and the total area of the 177 units of the apartment in this case is 76.09% of the total area of the 177 units of the household in this case's total area of 13814.6m28.4.62.

(2) Calculation of damages

The 98,975,053 causes of total expenses incurred in repairing the defects of the apartment section of this case. The 177 households, out of the expenses incurred in repairing the defects of the apartment section of this case, are 36,741,67, and the total expenses incurred in repairing the defects of the section of exclusive ownership of this case, are 98,975,053. According to the appraiser's appraisal of the non-party, the 177 households' damages claim replacing the defect repair, out of the expenses incurred in repairing the defect of the above section of exclusive ownership, are 98,975,05,053.2) The 144 households' total expenses incurred in repairing the defect of the above section of exclusive ownership of this case 333 households, 145,051,846.3). Accordingly, the 1777 households' damages claim in lieu of the defect repair, 256,276,2736,4766,279,37646,767,29.

(3) Limitation of liability

However, in light of all the circumstances indicated in the argument in this case, it is difficult to strictly distinguish the part caused by the mistake in the construction of the Defendant Construction Company from the defect in the apartment of this case, among the defect that occurred in this case, from the date of inspection of the use of the apartment of this case to the date when the appraisal of the defect was actually conducted, it is difficult to say that the defect in this case is increased due to the mistake in the construction of the Defendant Construction Company, and the fact that the possibility of expanding the defect in the apartment of this case cannot be ruled out at all due to the mistake in the management of the owners of the apartment of this case, the amount of damage that the Defendant Land Trust and Construction Company is liable to compensate for to the plaintiffs shall be limited to 80% of the amount recognized in the above Paragraph (2) in accordance with the principle of fairness or the principle of good faith.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Construction Company’s 284,161,432 won (i.e., KRW 355,201,791 x 80%) and damages damages in lieu of defect repair occurred to the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks, from December 12, 2009 to December 12, 209, it is clear that the purport of this case’s claim and the application form for change of the cause of claim were served on the Defendant Construction Company as of the day following the date on which the copy of the claim was served on the Defendant Construction Company, and it is reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case’s performance from December 12, 2010 to February 12, 2010; 20% of annual damages in lieu of the annual rate of 20% from the day following the date on which the application for damages in this case’s claim was delivered to the Defendant Construction Company and each of the above 284,161,23846,25.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant insurance company

(a) The occurrence of liability for defect repair;

According to the facts found above, as a person who guaranteed the obligation to repair defects of the Defendant Construction Company under the instant guarantee agreement, the Defendant Insurance Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the guarantee creditor, a warranty creditor, a warranty bond within the scope of the guaranteed amount of the instant guarantee agreement, a warranty bond equivalent to the repair cost incurred within each warranty period after the inspection of the instant apartment

(b) Expenses for repairing defects by the warranty period and the scope of each guarantee contract of this case;

According to the above facts, the warranty liability amount of KRW 48,54,508 under the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act for the defect warranty of KRW 24,094,712 + 24,49,7966), the warranty liability amount of KRW 25,471,275 (= public 23,919,510 + KRW 1,510 + KRW 1,51,7655) for the defect warranty of KRW 31,453,275, the warranty liability amount of KRW 31,453,192 + KRW 329,129,1550 + KRW 329,329,575, KRW 279,575, KRW 279,575, KRW 297,575, KRW 297,5375, KRW 329,575, KRW 329,275,5329,294,525,

C. Limitation on liability

However, each guarantee contract of this case is in the form of a guarantee contract, and the liability of the plaintiff of the defendant insurance company for the plaintiff is subordinate to the liability of the defendant construction company for damages. As seen earlier, since the liability of the defendant construction company for damages is limited to 80% in accordance with the principle of fair apportionment of damages or the principle of good faith, the liability of the defendant insurance company for guarantee is limited to the scope of the guarantee bond of each guarantee contract of this case within the scope of the warranty bond of each guarantee contract of this case.

Therefore, the warranty bond to be paid by the defendant insurance company to the plaintiff is 134,266,450 won [(48,544,508 won for the defect warranty liability of one year + 25,471,275 won for the defect warranty liability of two years + 31,453,192 won for the defect warranty liability of three years + 24,412,332 won for the defect warranty liability of five years + 37,951,756 won for the defect warranty liability of ten years]; 80%).

D. Scope of joint liability with Defendant Construction Company

Of the above money, with regard to the portion to be paid by Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. to each of the Plaintiff, Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) x KRW 105,661,924, which is the cost calculated according to the ratio of the size of the former Co., Ltd. (excluding the repair cost for the defect repair - KRW 336,741,67,269) x KRW 134,630,584 won (= KRW 28,968,60 + KRW 105,661,924), excluding the repair cost for the defect repair - KRW 36,741,67,269) x KRW 764,767,640, 767, 76468, 924) x Defendant Co., Ltd.’s liability to be paid to Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) to the Plaintiff with the limitation of liability from 80%

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, as to the Plaintiff’s insurance company and each of the above 3.C. KRW 107,704,467 out of KRW 284,161,432, and KRW 101,00,000 among the above 3.C., the Defendant insurance company, the insurer of each of the instant contracts, is obligated to pay 20% annual damages for delay from the date following the date on which the Plaintiff’s claim for the security deposit against the Defendant insurance company was created, as requested by the Plaintiff, for the remainder 6,704,467 on the record that the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the date following the date on which the Plaintiff had been served on the Defendant insurance company, and as to the remainder 6,704,467, the following day after the delivery of the copy of the claim and the ground for the claim, 209.12.25% annual damages for delay from the following day after the date on which the application for the security deposit against the Defendant insurance company was served, as requested by the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) The term “new construction, extension, remodeling, large-scale repair, or remodeling of multi-family housing.”

2) The appraiser did not examine the defects that occurred in the section of exclusive ownership with respect to the untransferable household units.

3) The sum of the remuneration costs for the remainder of the households, other than the households indicated in the owner column in the separate sheet of the generation generation is as follows.