1. Upon the conjunctive claim added by this Court, the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 2 Industrial Complex Construction Co., Ltd. and nuclear power plant construction.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 10-1, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10-1 and 2.

The plaintiff is a project undertaker who constructed and sold 22 apartment complexes of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government 445-5 Samsan-dong 22 apartment complexes (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

Defendant 2 Busan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2 Construction”), nuclear mining construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2”), and Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Tae Young Construction”) jointly contracted by the Plaintiff for the new construction of the instant apartment by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2 Construction, and the total sum of Defendant 2 Construction, Defendant 3 Construction, and Tae Young Construction, together with Defendant 3 Construction, are joint contractors), and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant 2”) is a warranty warranty liability for the execution of the said joint contractors.

B. On June 19, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the new construction of the instant apartment was awarded to the joint contractor (hereinafter “instant contract”). On October 21, 2005, the Plaintiff was subject to a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment.

C. On June 19, 2003, the Defendant Mutual Association concluded a warranty contract, such as the detailed statement of the warranty liability in attached Form No. 1, stating that it guarantees the liability to compensate for defects incurred after the date of the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case, as well as the liability to compensate for defects.

The council of occupants' representatives of the apartment in this case asserts that there was a defect due to the non-construction, alteration construction, defective construction, etc. in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the apartment in this case, and that the apartment in this case was transferred from the sectional owners of the apartment in this case and substituted the repair of the defects against the plaintiff on May 10, 2010 by Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2010Gahap590