1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the money corresponding to the following order for payment is against the Defendants respectively.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the pertinent part against the Defendants is identical to that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance

2. The reasoning for this court’s explanation as to each claim for reimbursement against the Defendants is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the remaining claims related to the 14th apartment section related to the apartment building of this case against the defendant Shee Construction and the defendant Construction Association

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the claim for damages and the security deposit in lieu of defect repair (i) liability and (ii) liability for damages arising from the defect that occurred in the instant apartment section 14 (hereinafter “the defect in the instant Section 14”), Defendant Seohee Construction is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages in lieu of the repair of the defect that occurred in the instant apartment section 14 (hereinafter “the defect in the instant Section 14”), and (ii) Defendant Construction Partnership is liable to pay the Plaintiff the security deposit equivalent to the damages equivalent to the repair of the defect that occurred after

B) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the period of extinctive prescription expired for the damage claim in lieu of the repair of the 14th section defects in the instant case and the 14th section defects. However, the 14th section defects in the instant case constitute a commercial activity conducted by Defendant Scar Construction, a merchant, and thus, the 5-year extinctive prescription is in principle required pursuant to the main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da25111, Dec. 8, 201), and the said extinctive prescription period runs separately from the time when each defect occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83908, Feb. 26, 2009). However, the 14th section defects in the instant case constitute the pre-use inspection.