1. The defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd., defendant Samchia, defendant Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the same Article, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The reasoning of this part of the judgment regarding the claim against Defendant Daewoo Construction, Samdore, and Samsung C&T is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts being dried or added, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[고쳐 쓰는 부분] ▣ 제1심판결의 이유 제2. 나.

2)Paragraphs (b) (from 12 pages to 17, up to 16, up to 13) have been dried as follows:

B) The scope of liability for the liability of Defendant Treatment Construction and Crriland under Article 667 of the Civil Act is that the liability for damages is ten (10) years’ warranty period (hereinafter “10-year warranty period”).

In addition to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 13, the costs of repair for the ten-year defect of the apartment of this case as a result of the appraisal of the previous lawsuit of this case are 250,240,484, and the Plaintiff’s damages liability is limited to 65% of the Plaintiff’s damages liability who is the seller of the apartment of this case in the previous lawsuit, and the joint supply and demand standard agreement entered into in 1997 by the defendant treatment Construction and Samdo community (hereinafter “the agreement of this case”).

() In the case of a defect in the construction work after the joint contractor is dissolved, the fact that the joint contractor is jointly and severally liable (Article 13) may be recognized. According to the above facts, the defendant Daewoo Construction and Cya Community, a joint contractor, jointly and severally under the instant contract and agreement, shall pay damages in lieu of the repair of the ten-year defect in the instant apartment, to the Plaintiff, who is the contractor, who is jointly and severally liable for the damages in lieu of the repair of the ten-year defect in the instant apartment. However, under the principle of fairness, the joint contractor is obligated to pay 162,656,314 (=250,240,484) applying the limitation of liability ratio in the prior lawsuit x 65%