1. Disposition No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd.

in excess of the money set forth in subsection (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party is the autonomous management body composed of the occupants in order to manage the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A apartment 10, 748 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Defendant B District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the instant apartment, and Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Construction”) is a company that executed the instant apartment by being awarded a contract with the Defendant Association for the new construction work of the instant apartment.

The defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (the trade name before and after the change: the Korea Housing and Housing Guarantee Corporation, regardless of whether before and after the change, hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Guarantee Corporation") is a guarantee company that has issued a warranty insurance policy on the new apartment construction of this case for the construction of

B. On January 4, 2012, Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Guarantee Corporation and the instant apartment as indicated below, and received each warranty bond from Defendant Guarantee Corporation.

The guaranteed amount for the guarantee period of one year from December 22, 201 to December 22, 2012, 2012, between 440,271,815 and 22 December 22, 2011 to 21 December 21, 2013 from December 21, 2013 to 538, December 22, 2011 to 880,543, 630 from December 22, 2014 to 880,543, 630 April 22, 201 to 630 December 21, 201;

C. On December 22, 2011, the instant apartment was subject to a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment. Defendant Hyundai Construction failed to construct the instant apartment in accordance with the design drawing, or modified the construction differently from the defective construction or design drawing. 2) Accordingly, from May 201 to March 2014, the Plaintiff used the instant apartment from May 201 to March 201.