1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

. Since it is recognized that defects have occurred by arbitrarily performing modified construction, the plaintiff's liability for damages in lieu of defect repairs is recognized.

The plaintiff conducted construction in consultation with the defendant company because it is likely to cause damage to a strong wind due to its characteristics after the Jeju-do flag. Thus, it is not a modified construction, but the defendant company agreed not to raise a question when the first additional agreement was made. However, there is no evidence to support that the defendant agreed on the above modified construction or agreed not to raise a problem as to the above modified construction. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

The Defendants asserts that since the Plaintiff arbitrarily changed and constructed the crowdfunding materials between the red wood, they should compensate for damages in lieu of the defect repair in this part.

Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraiser K’s appraisal, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was constructed as “Icheon Pipe 40*40 red typing,” and the walls as “I year Pipe 30*30 T15 in T 15 in inland water and red typing,” but actually, in fact, as “Tincheon ceping red typing,” and the walls as “Tin ceping red typing.”

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff arbitrarily changed the construction and caused a defect. Therefore, the plaintiff's liability for damages in lieu of the defect repair is recognized.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company agreed not to raise any question with respect to the existing modified construction when the first additional agreement was made, rather than the modified construction, since the Plaintiff was executed according to the direction of the Defendant Company and the supervising company. However, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant agreed on the said modified construction or did not raise any problem with the said modified construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

The Defendants, who were not constructed on the rooftop of the septic tank, shall be the Plaintiff.