1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendants did not cooperate in the withdrawal of deposits.

1. The reasoning in this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” from 16 to 17, the second 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The reasoning in this part of the judgment on the defense of this case is the same as the part of “the judgment on the defense of this case’s main safety” from 18 to 15, the 8th 12th 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts that are dried or deleted as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment on the defense of this case’s main

The 9th to 27th (3rd under the table) of the decision of the first instance shall be made in the following manner:

In regard to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit goes against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of the instant lawsuit, and thus, it is unlawful. The Defendants deleted the instant lawsuit from the first and second instances of the judgment of the first instance to the second and second instances of the said judgment.

In view of the following circumstances, the previous suit of this case and the subject-matter of a lawsuit of this case are subject to the prior suit of this case and the written evidence No. 19, considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the prior suit of this case and the subject-matter of a lawsuit of this case shall be deemed to be “the subject-matter of a lawsuit for damages due to non-payment of service charges against the third and third architectural firms” among the prior suit of this case and the instant suit of this case, taking into account the following circumstances:

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The scope of the judgment on the cause of the claim is within the scope of one decision, and the part on the claim for damages equivalent to the damages for delay and damages for delay borne by the owner and the third-party architect due to the defendants' illegal acts is unlawful as seen above and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment on the merits is equivalent to the damages for delay borne by the owner due to the illegal acts of the separate defendants.