1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant Myeong Construction Co., Ltd, the amount of KRW 209,412,528 and KRW 192,252,80 among them, the amount of KRW 209,412,52,80.

In light of the fact that it is reasonable to regard it as a one-time defect if it was constructed differently from the completion drawing, and that it is not reasonable to conclude that it is difficult to conclude that it does not cause functional or safety harm to the general type of reinforcement, as it is difficult to conclude that it was carried out as a general reinforcement of liability. The appraiser’s appraisal result that it does not constitute a defect is deemed to be a defect, and it is difficult to accept as it is difficult to accept, since it is the result of the appraiser’s appraisal that it is not a defect, to view it as a case where it was put in place for normal operation.

The defendants' assertion in this part is without merit.

On the other hand, the defendants asserts that the unit price calculated by the appraiser is excessive in the case of executing the hand-off type reinforcement for the repair of defects.

In light of the following facts: (a) the as-built drawings are only indicated as “T12 reinforced glass (water protection)”; and (b) the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants have the same specifications and performance as “Surging 12*900*2100” selected by the appraiser for the calculation of the unit price, in light of the following: (i) the as-built glass (water protection, soundproof, soundproof, and air proof) and (ii) the products have the same specifications and performance as “Surging (water protection, soundproof, soundproof, and air proof)” which the appraiser selected for the calculation of the unit price.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the repair cost only within the limit of 412,031 won.

[Public 1-10] Since it does not cause any hindrance to the performance of waterproof due to waterproof spawn construction of walls on each roof floor, it does not constitute a defect.

(1) The completion drawing (A-704) stipulates that a waterproof be built on each wall of each roof floor. In fact, it has not been constructed, ② the defendant company does not go through such procedures despite the approval of modification from the person authorized to approve project plans or through the notification procedure if the design is modified in the actual construction process, and ③ the approval of the use of apartments is on the completion drawing.