1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(b) it was confirmed that the design drawing was not indicated;

2. It was confirmed that the entire retaining wall at the boundary line on the north west west west west west was installed without construction.

③ It was confirmed that some retaining walls were not constructed and sewerage were not constructed at the boundary line on the southwest side of AC.

④ The design drawings indicate that the sewerage LINE is to be constructed on the road side, but on-site construction was confirmed to have been constructed on the road as I ma.

However, there is no problem in use and management.

⑤ Although it was confirmed that the part of the concrete package of I access road was destroyed, it was confirmed that it was impossible to find out whether the cause of damage was the Plaintiff’s mistake or the Defendant’s mistake.

(6) On the ground of I, it was confirmed that concrete from the upper part of the retaining wall was not constructed.

7. The design drawings indicate that aC southwest boundary is constructed as a concrete retaining wall, but some sections are confirmed to have been constructed as landscaped stone.

8. While the length of the retaining wall AC is indicated as 7.44M*22.2M in design drawings, on-site construction was conducted with the length of the retaining wall 6M*21.5M ( retaining wall 8M landscaping 13.5M) and confirmed that the site area was small.

G. On June 16, 2015, the conciliation was concluded that the Defendant paid C KRW 10,000,000 by July 31, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 13, 14, 15, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for damages

A. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction of this case was carried out by the defendant, while the construction of this case was carried out, or the construction of this case was carried out differently from the defective construction or design drawing, thereby causing any defect that may hinder the function, aesthetic or safety of the land of this case. Since the cost of repairing defects was assessed as 115,319,03, the defendant is assessed as 115,003.