1. Defendant B, among the judgment of the court of first instance, exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 5:7 pages 11). As such, this part of this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) in April 10 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance court is dismissed as “C” and both Defendant C and “C” are dismissed as “C”.

B. Defendant C’s assistant intervenor in the fourth 14th 14th eth eth 14th eth son in the first instance judgment is “D Co., Ltd., a supplementary intervenor in the first instance trial,” respectively.

C. “Determination on the occurrence and scope of 4. Defect” in the last five to six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance is different from “Determination on the occurrence and scope of 3. Defect”. D.

The 6th " [Attachment 2] of the first instance judgment shall be raised as follows:

[Attachment 2] 561,782,4636,485,486,40,475,47,4884,368,405,2868,40,467,470,870,470,4705,870,8705,870,870,4705,870,4705,870,470,4705,47,470,470,470,475,470,470,470,47587,4847,57848,47,4757,470,5758,47,470,57,470,475,470,470,470,475,2758,757,29,205,757,757,27847,57,47,207,487

E. The 7th to 12th of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

"The result of the appraisal by the appraiser M of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as the "appraisal"), the result of the entrustment of each appraisal supplementation by the court of the first instance and this court, the N of the court of the first instance, the results of the fact inquiry by the head of the Incheon Metropolitan City Free Economic Zone Authority, the results of the fact inquiry by the court about the

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B is the Plaintiff, and ① the project undertaker, who sold the instant apartment, before being amended by Act No. 11590, Dec. 18, 2012, as the project undertaker who sold the instant apartment.