1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) company, Gyeongnam company, and members construction industry company.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, with the exception that the court added the following judgment as to the part which raised the appeal and the counterclaim claim raised in the trial as follows, and that "a decision substituting the operation of the following contents" in the fifth 1 and second 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that "a decision substituting the following adjustment taking into account the plaintiff's limitation of liability ratio of 86%" is the same as "a decision substituting the adjustment of the following contents." Thus,

【11쪽 5행부터 14쪽 19행까지를 아래와 같이 고침】 ⑶ 소멸시효 완성의 항변에 관한 판단 ㈎ 피고 경남기업, 대원건설산업은 원고가 피고 경남기업, 대원건설산업에 대하여 가지는 이 사건 제1아파트의 하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상채권 중 미시공 및 1년차 하자에 대한 부분이 시효로 소멸하였다고 주장한다.

㈏ 건설공사에 관한 도급계약이 상행위에 해당하는 경우 그 도급계약에 기한 수급인의 하자담보책임은 상법 제64조 본문에 의하여 원칙적으로 5년의 소멸시효에 걸리는 것으로 보아야 하고(대법원 2011. 12. 8. 선고 2009다25111 판결 참조), 그 소멸시효기간은 사용검사 전 발생한 하자에 대하여는 그 하자가 각 발생한 날 후로서 사용검사를 받은 때부터, 사용검사 후 발생한 하자에 대하여는 각 하자가 발생한 때부터 별도로 진행한다고 보아야 한다

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83908 Decided February 26, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37565 Decided March 14, 2013, etc.). Examining the facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the five-year extinctive prescription is applied to the liability for warranty against the Defendant Gyeongnam Company and the members construction industry based on the first contract of this case, which is a commercial activity, and in the case of the non-construction defects among the defects that occurred in the first apartment of this case, the pre-use inspection is the time when the pre-use inspection was conducted.