All appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

1. The reasoning of this Court’s explanation for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, the judgment of the first instance court is to reduce 40% of the cost of repair of defects in accordance with the principle of fairness (i.e., recognition of liability within the limit of 60%).

However, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to view that the first deliberation judgment is unfair even after considering the circumstances cited by the plaintiff in the trial.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that the above reduction is too small, but there is no reason to do so.

In addition, the defendant's argument in the trial is the same as that in the first instance trial.

2. On the 2nd judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s “Defendant” in the 13th judgment of the second instance is the Defendant [the name was changed from the Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. on July 1, 2015 pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Housing and Urban Fund Act (Act No. 12989)].

The first instance court's 10th trial's 3th trial's 10th trial's 10th trial's 10th trial's 3th trial's 10th trial's 10

The first instance court's "2,714 Won 22,714 Won" in the fourth instance court's decision is "2,714 Won 22,714 Won (0.3m or more)."

After the 16th 16th 16th 16th 201 of the first instance judgment, the “five year’s request for performance of warranty against repair of defective defects” is added.

The first instance court's decision No. 6 was pronounced "No. 22, 2018" as "No. 23, 2018."

The plaintiff's second defense to the same purport is reasonable, as it was suspended with the approval of debt on October 18, 2017, in the first instance court's first instance court's 21 conduct "the statute of limitations has been interrupted". The plaintiff's second defense to the same effect is dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no reason.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and both the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are without merit.