1. The plaintiff.

Defendant B apartment reconstruction association and Defendant Barun Construction Co., Ltd. respectively are KRW 2,673,498,013 and they are.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is the autonomous management body comprised of the occupants to manage the 1,926 units of the 29-dong apartment complex A (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in Geumcheon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). The defendant Barun Construction directly constructed the apartment of this case and sold it in common with the defendant Barun Association. The defendant Barun Construction Co., Ltd. concluded a warranty contract for the apartment of this case with the defendant Barun Construction.

B. On January 25, 2006, Defendant Barun Construction Co., Ltd. entered into each of the following warranty contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant warranty contracts”) with the head of the Geumcheon-gu Busan Metropolitan City Gu, the authority for usage inspection, as the guarantee creditor, to guarantee the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment, and entered into each of the following warranty contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant warranty contracts”) and received each of the above warranty contracts under each of the respective warranty contracts.

The debt guarantee amount (won) No. 1 D 1D 1D 206 from February 10, 2006 to February 9, 2007 (1) 1,771,601,214 E 2 E from February 10, 2006 to February 9, 2008 (2) 1,771,601,214 F 3, 214 2,657,401,824 G 24 G 2006 to February 10, 2006; 2,657,401,824 G 24 from February 10 to February 9, 2006; 1,328,70,90; 10,91-10, 201 to October 5, 201, 206 to October 10, 2016;

C. Around February 10, 2006, the apartment of this case, including the usage inspection of the apartment of this case, had undergone a pre-use inspection, and thereafter, the guarantee creditor of each of the instant guarantee contracts was changed to the Plaintiff.

When Defendant 1 constructed the apartment of this case, including the occurrence of defects, and Defendant 1’s apartment construction and sold it in lots, the part to be constructed according to the design drawing at the time of approval of the project is not constructed, or the part to be constructed according to the design drawing at the time of approval of the project is modified differently from the defective construction or design drawing, and is rupture into the above apartment section and