1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the “Expert J” under the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “Expert J”) shall be deemed as the “Expert J” under the 1st sentence; and (b) the “Defendant B” under the 3rd and 5th sentence under the 5th sentence below the 10th sentence; and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in the part of the 10th to 14th to 12th, 19.

A. 4) Part 4) as stated in the following Paragraph 2, each dismissal is as follows, and except for the addition or supplementary decision as stated in Paragraph 3 as to the part of the appeal which the party asserts in the trial as the reason for appeal, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(However, the part concerning the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation of the first instance, in which separation or determination is made, is excluded from the part concerning the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation). 2. Goon part of the first instance judgment

A. 4) Part 4 (No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance) [No. 130] 4] liquid flood control [joint 130] , [joint 131] , [joint 133] , 133] / [joint 134] ] ] the summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the special specifications of the apartment of this case were indicated in the apartment of this case as “the second vehicle for liquid flood control,” and the two thickness are not specified in the completion drawings, and there is no provision regarding the thickness of liquid flood control specifications even in the construction work standard applied at the time of approval of the apartment of this case in 2006.

Therefore, it can not be judged as defects that lack of liquid waterproof thickness.

(2) Although there were a lot of water leakage phenomena in underground soft and parking lots, it is extremely minor that the appraiser calculated the cost of repairing defects on the part of the liquid waterproof layer of the given appraisal items, and there was no problem as to the water leakage test conducted to verify whether water was stored in the lower part for forty-eight hours after the construction of the waterproof layer during the new construction process and the water leakage phenomenon was revealed on the lower part. Thus, the performance of the liquid waterproof layer of the given appraisal items is good.

(iii).