1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial correction as follows. As such, the same is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of “Defendant’s assistant intervenor” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s assistant intervenor”) as stated between the first and second parts of the judgment of the first instance court shall be determined as “the Defendant’s assistant intervenor is a company which was subcontracted part of the new apartment construction work of this case from the Defendant and constructed.”

(b)"Expert" in Part 5 of the fourth decision of the first instance shall be deemed to be "Experts of the first instance court", and "this court" shall be deemed to be "the first instance court";

The same shall apply to all the following:

2. The grounds for this Court’s opinion concerning the occurrence and scope of defects are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or modification of some of the contents as follows. As such, this Court’s opinion is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the argument and decision regarding "(3) defects in the height of the lower part of the bathing room frame" as stated in Chapters 4 through 14 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s “Standards for the Inspection of Defects, Method of Selection of Repair Expenses, and Determination of Defects for Multi-Family Housing”, the Defendant and the supplementary intervenor determined that the height of the bathing room is less than 1/100 of the straight distance from the drainage mouth to the sphers of the straight distance, compared to the end of the sphers indicated in the design drawing even if the construction is different from the design drawing, there is a defect in the case where the height of the bathing room falls short of the 1/100 of the straight distance from the drainage mouth. In accordance with such standards, the Defendant had a legitimate construction in consideration of the toilet senspher, and even if there is a defect, the appraiser of the first instance court should recon