The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, is modified as follows. A.

Defendant B.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for adding the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the claims filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect to the Defendant B, and the following additional arguments made by each court, thereby citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant B et al., “Defendant B et al., and Defendant B” at the last 3rd place.

“B” Defendant B “ro Ro... 5, the 58 household units” under the 5th attached Table are as “156 household units.” The 5th attached Table is as follows: “36.25%” in the 15th attached Table 7, 9, 13, 16, 15th 11, and 12, respectively. The 5th attached Table “1420.1 square meters” in the 7th attached Table is as “3,819.7 square meters.”

5.On the ground for recognition from 9 to 6 pages 1, the "A" shall be added to the ground for recognition of 9 to 6 pages 1.

The 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 12th 12th "67,175,596th 178" shall be "178,932,766."

The “64,711,288 won” of the 6th 15th 6th 15th 172,304,626 (“11,984,902”) “B” of “4,391,565.”

At the bottom of 6 pages 1, “A” and “A” are the buildings of this case.

8. The following shall be added to the table:

② Defendant DD Mutual Aid Association asserts that it is unclear whether the defect occurred within the warranty period of Defendant DD Mutual Aid Association due to the failure of an agent-fluence in the instant building F, I, J, G, and G water leakage of each corridor in the instant building.

In principle, the fact that the defect occurred within the defect liability period should be proved by the plaintiff. However, it is difficult to expect that the plaintiff or the tenant, owner, etc. of the apartment of this case, who has no expertise in the construction, can prove the time of the defect by specifying the defect daily. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume the defect through various indirect facts that can be inferred that the defect occurred within the defect liability period.

However, according to the purport of Eul's statement No. 4-6 and the whole argument, the building of this case is subject to the purport of the whole argument.