1. The Plaintiff; Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association KRW 46,955,853; Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. KRW 55,311,686 and each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization composed of the occupants in order to manage a total of 5-265 units of above ground-ground glarkekeke apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) such as Daegu Suwon-dong, 365, etc.

The guarantee period of the guaranteed amount from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2016 (10 years to July 31, 2016) 949,379,390, 390 to July 31, 2011 to July 30, 201 (5 years) 1,898,758,780 from July 31, 201 to July 30, 201 (5 years) 1,265,839, 190 from July 30, 206 to July 30, 2009 (3 years) 1,265,839, 190 from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2008 (2 years)

B. Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association entered into a contract for the warranty of defects with the Sungsung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Grsung Industrial Co., Ltd.”) which newly constructed one, two, and three complexes among the instant apartment complexes, and issued the warranty bond with the following [the table] to the Suwon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office, and thereafter the Plaintiff became the guaranty creditor.

The guarantee period of 1,424,069,090 from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2016 (1,424,069,090 from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 201 (5 years) 2,848,138,170 from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 201 (5 years) 1,898,758,780 from July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2009 (3 years), 1,898,758,780 on July 31, 2006 to July 30, 2006 (2 years), 1,898,758,780,780 on July 30, 206 to July 30, 2006 (2 years).

C. The Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. entered into a defect guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slun Construction”), which newly constructed the fourth and fifth complexes among the instant apartment complexes, and issued the defect guarantee certificate with the following [Attachment] to the Sung-gu Office in Daegu Metropolitan City, and thereafter the Plaintiff became the guarantee creditor.

The apartment of this case was approved to use as a patrolman on July 2006, and the chemical industry and slick Construction failed to construct the apartment of this case in accordance with the design drawing or constructed the apartment of this case differently from the defective construction or design drawing. As a result, multiple defects were generated in the apartment of this case.

A complex (Omission) (Omission) 1, 10 years, two years and ten (10) years in total, after the sectional inspection.