1. From January 29, 2015, 347,117,477 won and its related litigation against Defendant Myun (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) Construction Industry Co., Ltd.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the appraisal by the appraiser A (hereinafter the "Appraiser"), and the purport of the entire pleadings against the appraiser by this Court.

The status of the parties is that the residents are autonomous management entities that form the apartment of this case through legitimate procedures in order to manage the 12-dong, 540 households and ancillary facilities (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in the Cheongju-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju-si, Yan-si, Yan-ro, Yok-ro, 57-ro, 37-ro, Cheongju-si, Yan-gu, Cheongju-si, and Defendant Digital Airport is the implementer who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and the construction industry of the main mountain of

B. On November 9, 2009, the main text of each of the instant guarantee contracts entered into each of the instant warranty contracts with the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance and each of the instant apartment contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant warranty contracts”) and was issued a warranty bond from the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

Since then, the insured of each guarantee contract of this case was changed to the plaintiff in the Cheongju market.

The guarantee amount from November 30, 200 to November 29, 2010 to November 29, 2011, 201 to November 30, 2011, 29 to November 1, 207,070,063,760 from November 30, 201 to November 30, 201, to November 856, 051,005,010 to April 30, 2009 to November 30, 2012; and the aggregate of 642,038,06,260,005 to November 30, 200 to November 30, 2009; and

C. (1) The apartment of this case was inspected on November 30, 2009, and the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case was conducted on November 30, 2009, and the main area of the mountain village construction industry of the defendant mountain village was not constructed with part of the apartment of this case to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing, or was constructed with alteration from the defective construction

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff on July 201.