1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff’s defect repair liability concerning the collective housing B in Kim Jong-si against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties (1) The Plaintiff is a company that constructed and sold the Kimpo-si B apartment (11 Dong Dong 138, 138; hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) The Defendant is an autonomous management organization organized by occupants pursuant to relevant statutes, such as the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, for the efficient management and operation of the instant apartment.

B. (1) On November 2, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the warranty of defects with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.”) for the warranty of defects (1, 2, 3, 5, 10 years old defects) of the apartment of this case with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.”). Accordingly, the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. issued the warranty bond on the same day.

Detailed details shall be as follows:

The Plaintiff provided KRW 4 of the guaranteed amount for the warranty of C 1 C 206.15 to November 15, 2006.14, 2007.14.59,496,000 from November 15, 2006 to November 14, 2008 from November 15, 2006 to November 14, 2008 to 59,496,000 from November 15, 2006 to November 15, 2006 to November 14, 2009 to 4 of the guaranteed amount for the warranty of C 206.14 to November 15, 2006 to November 15, 2006 to November 14, 2011 to 14,62,0005 G 5 G 206.15 to November 15, 2006 to 14, 2004; and

On the other hand, the above guarantee contract contains the content that if the house guarantee guarantee has paid to the guarantee creditor the amount guaranteed under the guarantee contract, the plaintiff shall compensate for the amount without delay, and if the plaintiff fails to perform it, the Korea Housing Guarantee may dispose of the security provided by the plaintiff and appropriate it for the repayment of the plaintiff's obligation.

(3) On November 15, 2006, the Plaintiff underwent a pre-use inspection on the apartment of this case. Since that time, the occupancy of the apartment of this case began, the said warranty contract is concluded.