1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, as to KRW 920,794,392 among the judgment of the court of first instance and KRW 886,798,315 among the judgment of the court of first instance, against the Plaintiff.

The reasons for this case are as follows, and the court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(다만, 분리 확정된 제1심 공동피고 서울보증보험 주식회사에 대한 부분 제외). 고쳐 쓰거나 추가하는 부분 고쳐 쓰는 부분 ▣ 제1심 판결문 제5면 ‘하자보수비내역표’ 중 ‘공용’ 부분의 ‘합계’란에 ‘1,462,663,874’를 ‘1,462,663,874(공용부분의 사용검사전 및 사용검사후 하자보수비 합계액에 안전관리비 5,349,000원을 더한 금액이다. 이하 같다)’로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제6면 제1행 ‘통지를 하였다’를 ‘통지를 하였고, 위 2015. 6. 3.자 통지가 2015. 6. 4. 도달한 것을 비롯하여 그 통지 무렵 위 각 통지들이 모두 피고에 도달하였다’로 고친다.

The plaintiff asserts that this part of the defect should be calculated by the cost of repairing the defects, such as the completion drawings, of the construction of a hot-project board (the difference between the cost of the construction of a board and the cost of the construction of a hot-project board) with regard to the defect.

Therefore, the defendants did not include the main room/cafeteria stop/cafeteria stop box in the indoor material mashmark, but it does not include the main room/cafeteria stop, and it does not cause any functional, aesthetic, and safety impairment due to the construction of the lower bottom of the Washington, so it cannot be viewed as a defect, and even if the non-construction part is a defect, it should be recognized as the cost of repairing defects.

The sanitary problem arising from cement exposure of the Washington is a concealed area that is not exposed to the outside, and there is no practical benefit from the construction of finishing materials with the same materials as the living room floor.