1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,429,137 as well as 5% per annum from May 13, 2016 to August 18, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization organized by the occupants of the instant apartment in order to manage 90 households, Dong-dong, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Dong-dong, 48 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant is a company that newly constructed and sold the instant apartment and guaranteed the obligation to repair the defects of the Daecheon-gu, Taecheon-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong (hereinafter “Seoul-si”).

B. 1) On August 4, 2005, the Defendant entered into a contract for the repair of defects with respect to the new construction of the instant apartment as indicated below (hereinafter “each guarantee contract of this case”) with a private market as a guarantee creditor between the Dae Young-type case and Daecheon-type case as of August 4, 2005

(2) Each of the instant apartment units was newly constructed on August 31, 2005, and the guaranty bond was issued accordingly. The guaranty bond Nos. 10231205-2001-004904, August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2010, KRW 20231205-2005-201-004905 to August 31, 2005 to August 31, 2015 to August 34, 2015, 956,000 won was issued. After which the construction of the instant apartment units was completed on August 31, 2005, the guaranty bond No. 10231205-200,000 won was subject to the guarantee contract from the private market, and each of the instant apartment units was modified to the guaranty bond No. 60,000,000 won.

C. 1) Since the construction of new apartment in this case was negligent due to the negligence on the part of the construction in the construction of the new apartment in the construction of the apartment in this case, the construction of the apartment in this case does not constitute a rupture defect, such as the rupture of repair cost by the attached defect repair liability period in the common area

As a result, the apartment of this case was created.