1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd, Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd, KRW 282,858,482 and KRW 101,00,000 among them, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is an autonomous management organization organized by occupants to manage three and 236 apartment units of the Guro New Town 10 apartment units located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, 307 (Yeung-dong), and 47 and ancillary facilities (hereinafter "the apartment units of this case"), and is the implementer who constructed and sold the apartment units of this case. Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Lonedo Construction") is a company that constructed the new apartment units of this case under a contract with the non-party association, and Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Housing Guarantee Co.,, Ltd.") guarantees the defect repair obligation for the apartment units of this case by Defendant Lonedo Construction.

B. Around October 7, 2008, Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd. entered into each of the instant guarantee contracts with respect to the Defendant’s housing guarantee and the instant apartment as indicated in the following table (hereinafter collectively “each of the instant guarantee contracts”) and was issued a warranty bond from the Defendant’s housing guarantee.

Since then, the guarantee creditor of each guarantee contract of this case was changed from the head of Seongbuk-gu to the plaintiff.

The security deposit for the guarantee period from October 9, 2008 to October 8, 2009 to October 9, 2008; the guarantee period from October 214, 609, and 369 2, 2008 to October 9, 2008 to October 9, 2010 to October 9, 201, 214, 609, 3693, October 9, 2008 to October 8, 2011, from October 321, 201 to October 321, 201 to October 9, 2008 to October 9, 2013 to October 160, 957, 0275 to October 9, 2008, 208; and the aggregate of the guarantee amount is 509,707,97,747,74,708

C. The instant apartment was inspected on October 8, 2008, and the instant apartment was inspected on the usage inspection. The Defendant Loneion Construction failed to construct the instant apartment in accordance with the design drawing, or modified the construction differently from the defective construction or design drawing. 2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the occupant of the instant apartment from September 2009 and the Plaintiff.