1. The manager of Daedong Housing Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's lawsuit taking over the construction of Daedong Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. A.

A. We examine the remainder of defects only.

The plaintiff asserted that in the preceding lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff was constructed in accordance with the design drawing, and as a result, the appraisal was recognized as a design defect.

According to Eul evidence No. 20, this part of this case is a defect in the construction of the building machinery and equipment specifications, although the heat heat pipe should be constructed to prevent heat loss, it can be recognized that the above heat pipe was not constructed.

Since the Plaintiff constructed the construction work in accordance with the specifications provided to the said Defendants, it cannot be viewed as a defect in construction.

According to the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-20 of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-20, it is found that the design drawing was constructed at 450*400mm in the design drawing with regard to the part of a bathing room, but in fact, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff ordered the modification of the design as above only with the description No. 4-2 of Eul evidence No. 4-2, and there is no other evidence. Thus, this part shall be viewed as a defect in the construction.

The Defendants did not perform the construction of a well-influence with the direction of the Plaintiff to remove the well-influence from the Plaintiff, and thus, cannot be viewed as a defect in construction.

According to the statement 6-1 of Eul evidence No. 6-1, it is not sufficient to recognize that the design drawing has not been executed differently from the above mark even though one mark of the household's fluor, although the design drawing is marked with the 6-1 mark, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff ordered the change of the design, this part shall be viewed as a defect in the construction.

Within 1-15 households.