1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Shee Construction Co., Ltd. is 353,612.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial dismissal or addition as follows.

2. Parts used or added;

A. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the expression “appraisal” shall be deemed to be the appraiser of the court of first instance, and the expression “the result of the instant appraisal” shall be deemed to read “the result of the first instance court’s appraisal.”

B. The following is added to the 11th page of the judgment of the first instance.

As to the exclusion period and claim against the defects in the first to third years, the Defendants asserted that the Seocho Belgium did not request the repair of the defects in the instant apartment for three years from December 15, 201, which was the date of the inspection on the use of the instant apartment, and thus, the exclusion period of the first to third years was all exceeded. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the Defendants, including the Plaintiff, may recognize the fact that the sectional owners of the instant apartment from March 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the defects in the instant apartment and demanded the repair thereof, and it is sufficient to view that the sectional owners of the instant apartment have requested the repair of the defects in subrogation of the Seocho Belgium. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

C. From the 12th bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 7th to the 13th 8th tier shall be followed as follows.

First, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire argument in the first instance trial as to the section for common use, the amount of damages caused by the defects in the section for common use of the apartment of this case is KRW 341,286,000 as shown in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance. However, the defect repair expenses are the business operator who is the seller and the contractor of the apartment of this case, and is the person liable to pay the Value-Added Tax Act.