1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following cases, the reasoning of the judgment, which is to be presented by the court, is as stated in the part of the reasoning against the defendant, and thus, citing the summary thereof pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The first instance court's first instance judgment's first instance judgment's 6th to 5th 10th juries are as follows.

【3) On December 19, 2018, the above court rendered a favorable judgment to the representative meeting of the occupants of this case with respect to KRW 1,752,895,711 and KRW 201,00,000 of the costs of repair of defects, and KRW 1,551,895,711 from March 11, 2015; KRW 5% per annum from February 25, 2016 to December 19, 2018; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment and continued in the appellate trial as Seoul High Court Decision 2019Na2002696.

In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment’s conduct No. 11 through No. 17 shall be deleted, and the first instance judgment’s conduct No. 18 through No. 20 shall be deleted. “The result of each appraisal and supplementary appraisal by the appraiser I of this court shall be deleted.”

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defect of this case" in the 3rd eth eth 7th eth eth son eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and the results of each appraisal and supplementary appraisal by the first instance trial appraiser I (hereinafter “the first instance trial appraiser”), the entire apartment of this case (as shown in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3, the entire apartment of this case (as shown in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3, collectively referred to as “the defect of this case”) exists, and the part of the repair cost for the defect of this case is also the same as described in the table of total sum of repair cost for each defect of this case on the premise of the head of the above section (as to the parties’ assertion as to whether to recognize the construction defect of this case and the repair cost, the specific contents are reflected in the judgment of the court as follows).”