1. The Defendant: KRW 17,578,501 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 5, 2016 to March 23, 2018; and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous organization composed of occupants for the management of four units and other auxiliary facilities (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of the Daegu North-gu A apartment 200 households constructed by Nonparty Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted company”).

B. On April 18, 2007, the Defendant entered into a warranty contract with the non-party company on the defect repair obligation regarding the apartment of this case as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for defect liability”). At the time, the guarantee creditor shall be deemed to have been changed to the council of occupants’ representatives when the council of occupants’ representatives is formed.

The guaranteed amount for a guarantee (the original defect) from May 15, 2007 to May 14, 2012 (the five-year defect) KRW 78,592,833, 207 to May 15, 2007 (the ten-year defect) KRW 78,592,833.

C. On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the repair of the five-year defect with the Nonparty Company.

On April 23, 2012, the non-party company could somewhat delay the processing of defects due to the company's circumstances. When the company's circumstances are normal, the non-party company sent a reply that it would promptly repair defects within the city, but did not perform the defect repair.

On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff did not perform the five-year defect repair to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant, who is the guaranteed liability, sent content-certified mail to request prompt repair of the defect.

Accordingly, on January 15, 2013, the defendant sent a reply that the 5 and 10th defect scope of the apartment of this case is limited to the case where the apartment house is collapsed due to the defect in the proof-stress structure or the apartment house is likely to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis.

E. According to the appraiser C’s appraisal result (hereinafter “court appraisal result”), there exists any defect that occurred after the inspection of use in the apartment of this case, and the charging method.