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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part of the basic facts is as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the addition of the following items in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the addition of the "written evidence Nos. 1 and 7 and the fact-finding results with respect to appraiser A" to the judgment of the court of first instance / [based on recognition] as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of

F. The appraiser of the prior suit accepted part of the Defendant’s assertion that the defects, such as non-construction, classified as defects after the pre-use inspection, should be classified as defects before the pre-use inspection in the prior suit, and re-classified the defect repair cost as stated in the separate sheet. As a result, among the defects in each part of the construction of the main body construction and the construction of the main body construction, part of the defect after the pre-use inspection was re-classified as defects before the pre-use inspection in the prior suit. As to this, the content that the appraiser of the prior suit was re-classified in this case is as listed below. After the confirmation of the prior suit, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,69,000 on April 19, 2016 with regard to the defects in the part of the construction of the main body construction and the construction of the main body construction, as the warranty bond.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the facts found in the basis of the obligation to pay the warranty bond, the plaintiff suffered defect in the apartment of this case, and requested the representative meeting of this case to repair the defects, and requested the performance of the repair of the defects in the Kuwon Construction and Kudong Construction, but the Sungwon Construction and Kudong Construction did not properly perform the obligation to repair the defects, which remains a defect. Thus, the defendant is a warranty bond for the construction of the apartment of this case under the defect warranty contract concluded with Sungwon Construction and Kudong Construction, which is the guarantee creditor, unless there are special circumstances.