1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.: KRW 626,625,400 and KRW 101,00,000 among them, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is the autonomous management body organized by the occupants in order to manage the 33 apartment units A, 2,328 households, and ancillary facilities (hereinafter “the apartment units of this case”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si. The non-party B apartment improvement project association (hereinafter “the non-party B apartment development association”) is the implementer who constructed and sold the apartment units of this case. The defendant Hyundai Construction is the company that constructed the new apartment units of this case after being awarded a contract from the non-party partnership.

B. On May 23, 2003, Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. entered into each of the instant guarantee contracts with Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association and each of the instant apartments as indicated below (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant guarantee contracts”) and received a warranty bond from Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association.

Since then, the guarantee creditor of each guarantee contract of this case was changed to the plaintiff.

The guarantee amount (unit (unit) 1 from December 15, 2005 to December 15, 2007, 89, 661, 114 on December 15, 2005 to December 15, 2005 to December 15, 2005 to December 15, 2008 to December 15, 2008 to December 15, 2008 to 674, 745, 8364 on December 15, 2010 to December 15, 2010 to December 674, 74, 745, 8364 on December 15, 2005 to December 15, 2015 to December 674, 745,836

C. On February 27, 2006, the apartment of this case had undergone a pre-use inspection on the apartment of this case. The Defendant Hyundai Construction failed to construct the part to be constructed according to the design drawing regarding the apartment of this case, or modified the design drawing differently from the defective construction or design drawing. 2) The Plaintiff continuously requested the repair of defects to the Defendant Hyundai Construction from February 2, 2006, which was around the date of the pre-use inspection, at the request of the occupants and sectional owners of the apartment of this case. The Defendant Hyundai Construction continued to perform the repair work for some defects. However, the apartment of this case still still remains a defect such as the specification of the repair cost concentration by the defect list by the attached Table 1, and the repair work is to be repaired.