1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim against the defendant Pest Construction Co., Ltd. of the plaintiff A, shall be paid below.

1. The reasons why this court should state this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) adding “in the first instance court” to “in the front of “in the lawsuit” under Section 1 of Section 2 of Section 8 of the judgment of the first instance; (b) deleted “the balance of money” in the table of Section 11 of the date 201, Jan. 20, 2012; and (c) deleted “the Plaintiff’s corresponding column 5 in the table of section 13 at the bottom; and (d) the corresponding column of the registered titleholder of the building is equal to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except that “the Plaintiff E (Share 30/100) and AG equity 70/100.”

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant G

A. The summary of the plaintiffs B, C, E, and F’s assertion is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost unpaid to the plaintiffs B, C, E, and F out of the sum of damages equivalent to the defect repair cost (a defect in the design defect), design change refund, and the sum of unjust enrichment equivalent to the material subsidy, as shown in the following table, against the plaintiffs G.

[Plaintiff B and F claimed the payment of the remainder of the damages corresponding to the cost of additional construction of the second floor as indicated below, including the damages corresponding to the cost of the defect repair (design defect), the refund for design change, and the amount of unjust enrichment corresponding to the material subsidy, against Defendant G, the above plaintiffs who are the plaintiffs (see the claim amount in the following table). However, the court of first instance dismissed all the claims against the above plaintiffs against Defendant G. Accordingly, in light of the purport of appeal among the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiffs, it is clear that in the case of plaintiffs B and F, the appeal was filed except for the damages corresponding to the cost of additional construction of the second floor, and the part corresponding to the cost of additional construction of the second floor against the defendant G was equivalent to the cost of additional construction of the second floor in the case of plaintiffs B and F (Plaintiff B, 64,51,871 won, and the cost of additional construction of the second floor.