1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the Defendant B’s request for the return of provisional payment are dismissed.

2...

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, with respect to the newly or repeatedly asserted matters at the trial of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the following judgment shall be added.

2. Additional determination

A. [Public 80] The [Additional Public 1] The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the lack of waterproof performance of the floor of an underground parking lot (e.g., omission of processes and lack of thickness)] The approval drawing of the apartment of this case is stipulated as “a liquid waterproof 1” and according to the revised building construction standard specifications in 194, it is identical to “a cement liquid waterproof C” of the amended building construction standard specifications in 199.

(j) The minimum thickness of the structure is 12 meters of walls and 20 meters of floor.

Therefore, the defect repair cost should be calculated by using the thickness of the waterproof layer as the upper standard (12m of the wall, 20m of the floor).

(B) Even if the Plaintiff’s primary assertion is without merit, the approval drawings (A-651) of the apartment of this case (hereinafter “A-651”) instruct that the apartment of this case be constructed at a 30-meter radius by aggregating the “cement 1” and the “cement 1,” and the approval drawings (A-663) indicate that the “cement 1” should be constructed at a 20-meter radius, so the thickness of the “cement 20-meter” should be regarded as 10-meter thick. Accordingly, the repair cost should be calculated with the thickness of the waterproof 10-meter (hereinafter “preliminary assertion”).

(2) The construction work of the apartment in this case was revised in 2006, since there is no special dispute between the parties that the approval of the project of the apartment in this case was made around 2008, or it can be recognized by the appraiser's appraisal result, etc.